Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL

PORT OF LONDON (EXTENSION OF SEAWARD LIMIT) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH EXTENSION, &C. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

Literature Bureaux

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what facilities are provided by the literature bureaux to which he has given assistance in Commonwealth and Colonial Territories for the training of students in the writing, preparation, and publication of text books in the field of technical and non-technical education, respectively; and what financial assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government for such projects in each territory, respectively, during the years 1960 to 1964.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr): During the financial years 1960–61 to 1963–64 Her Majesty's Government contributed £60,300 to such literature bureaux. Twenty-six thousand pounds went to East Africa, £13,000 to Borneo, £16,000 to the South Pacific and £300 to Sierra Leone. No facilities such as the hon. Member mentions have been provided at the South Pacific Bureau since 1962.

With regard to the other Bureaux which are in independent countries, I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. In view of the enormous need for text books in the Commonwealth and for training people in their production, does he not think that the provision of a mere 12 bursaries at the University of London for the whole of the Commonwealth is a minute fractional contribution towards the solution of this problem? Cannot his Department do more to provide facilities for training people here in the preparation of text books?

Mr. Carr: I agree that this is something which should be looked into in the future, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we respond to requests and that so far requests of this kind have not been very voluminous. This is only part of the story, for there are also the low-priced book and other schemes of that kind.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he is not spending all the money which Parliament has offered to him for his low-priced book scheme? Would it not be worth while using some of this unused money to help these literature bureaux?

Mr. Carr: In view of the frequency with which the hon. Gentleman reminds me of this fact, I shall certainly not forget it. As I think he realises, the rate at which a scheme develops is not entirely in our hands. I can only assure him and the House that we are doing everything we can to speed it up.

Commonwealth Students (United Kingdom)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to what extent his Department has given special attention to the need for practical training of Commonwealth students in commerce, accountancy, business administration, and banking, in the United Kingdom and overseas, respectively.

Mr. Carr: Requests for training in these fields have so far been few. But in anticipation of a growing demand my Department is beginning to study the needs in consultation with the bodies


involved. A grant of £5,000 a year is being made to the British Institute of Management and assistance has been given to institutions overseas, many of which offer courses in these fields.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman altered his attitude to this problem? Is it not wrong to wait for requests to arise? Should it not be his policy to assess the need and go out to meet it and organise within industry and administration here the facilities to enable these countries to tackle their problems?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Carr: If all those hon. Members who so easily applaud that sentiment were to visit the Governments of developing countries, they would take a different view. Of course we should try to anticipate needs and try to stimulate requests which we can meet and which it would be useful to help. As I said, in anticipation of the growing need we are beginning to organise the facilities.

Sir J. Pitman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of teaching not only students but the teacher-trainers, because if we get in the teacher-training colleges those who are capable of doing this job, we multiply by many times the effectiveness of what is achieved? Secondly, will he bear in mind what the independent schools can do, because they have felt a very strong demand for help in the lower orders of commercial practical work? Finally, will he make an attempt to help forward this excellent work in every way he can?

Mr. Carr: I will certainly take account of what my hon. Friend says about the independent schools and colleges. Of course I agree with his last remarks. I also agree that the supply of teacher-trainers is very urgent, and in this respect we are deliberately trying to stimulate more requests than we are getting.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many Commonwealth students in electrical and mechanical engineering entered United Kingdom universities and technical colleges in 1961–62 and 1962–63.

Mr. Carr: 1,158 and 1,359 in the two years in technical colleges. For the

universities, the only figures available are of students taking courses in technology. These numbered 1,796, and 1,962 in the two years.

Mr. Bence: In view of the vastness of this problem and the huge area to be covered in the undeveloped parts of the British Commonwealth, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there has been satisfactory progress in the last few years?

Mr. Carr: There has been considerable progress, but I agree that the progress still to be made in this and other fields of technical co-operation is very great. We are making it, I hope.

Desalination Techniques

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what studies he is making of desalination techniques; and what projects he has for their application.

Mr. Carr: In view of the extensive research being undertaken under other auspices, my Department is not at present sponsoring any studies of desalination. I have no requests for technical assistance in this field under consideration.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware of the United States Government's interest in desalination—if I may use that term instead of "desalinisation"—in conjunction with the development of nuclear energy and, in those circumstances, will he consult the United States Government in order to study further a technique which may well revolutionise the means of desert reclamation.

Mr. Carr: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is extremely disappointing and that the nation which can solve this problem will do more for the hungry millions than the nation which puts, a man on the moon? Will he therefore bring us into line with countries working on this project and try to get international co-operation on this vital issue?

Mr. Carr: At least we are not trying to put a man on the moon. I will bear in mind what the hon. Lady says. It is a most important problem.

Voluntary Service Overseas (Air Travel)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he will discuss with the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways the possibilities of increasing the number of off-peak period air tickets at substantially reduced prices for young men and women who offer themselves for voluntary service overseas.

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said on 5th February that he would draw the attention of the Corporations to these matters and I shall follow up his action.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will it be borne in mind that on many routes B.O.A.C. planes are losing money and, as such, are really flag-carriers? Does not it seem reasonable that they should fill their payloads with people who want to give voluntary service overseas? Is he aware that this service would cost the Corporation and the Government nothing?

Mr. Carr: As I have said, I will follow this up. The Government have no power of direction over the Corporation in this matter, but in fairness to the Corporations we ought not to under estimate the difficulties they have in connection with international agreements.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister extend that request to the private air companies and, if the Corporation should accede to this request and make a deficit in so doing, will the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) refrain from pointing to that as proof of the failure of nationalisation?

Mr. Carr: I cannot answer for my hon. Friend. I can say "Yes" to the other point.

British Personnel (Qualifications)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he is taking to ensure that British

personnel undertaking inspection of projects with British participation in developing countries have the necessary instruction and technical qualifications.

Mr. Carr: Her Majesty's Government have no right of inspection of technical assistance projects in independent developing countries but, as far as possible, my specialist advisory staff who are highly qualified in their respective fields keep abreast of developments in these countries which they are often invited to visit.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand fully the views of the Minister about the sensitivity of developing countries, but is not his answer a little exaggerated? Surely donors, whether Government or private bodies, have a right and a duty to see that their aid or help is being properly used? What are we doing to see that projects on which British public funds are spent are being looked at and followed up?

Mr. Carr: The staff of our missions abroad keep in regular contact with development projects, and this is a continuous contact. The number of staff devoted to that purpose overseas is increasing. Apart from that, we depend on specialist advisers from this country.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is not there a case for attaching to high commissions and embassies technical assistance experts as attachés?

Mr. Carr: While begging this description of "attaché" versus secondment, I can say that there are one or two people who are associated with my Department doing this work in posts abroad.

Zanzibar (Expatriate Civil Servants)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many expatriate British civil servants are still being employed and paid by the Government of Zanzibar; and how many have had their employment terminated, and on what conditions, by the new Government.

Mr. Carr: One hundred and seventeen. of which about 80 are in post and the rest on vacation or terminal leave. Thirteen pensionable and four contract


officers have had their employment terminated. The pensionable officers will receive their compensation in one lump sum. I do not yet know the terms for the four contract officers.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend agree to watch the situation and the developments in Zanzibar and do what he can to safeguard the rights of the civil servants there? Can he tell me whether the Civil Service Commission established under the Constitution is still effective? Is he aware that I have information that some pensions due in January have not yet been paid?

Mr. Carr: I was not aware of the last piece of information, which I will look into most carefully and quickly. I must ask notice of the question about the Civil Service Commission. Regarding looking after the rights of service officers in Zanzibar, the House may like to know that before he left on 20th February the British High Commissioner was authorised to inform our overseas officers remaining there, both pensionable and contract, that the British Government in all circumstances would take all measures open to them to secure that the Zanzibar Government fulfils its obligations.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that great bitterness has been created among the civil servants in this and other Colonies by their being divided into the designated and the non-designated? Is he aware that the designated get far better treatment, higher salaries and terminal compensation payment as against the non-designated who get nothing of the kind? Will he examine the position again?

Mr. Carr: There is, of course, good reason for designation, and that is why the people designated get better terms. The other points raised by the hon. Member comprise another Question which I must ask him to put on the Order Paper.

Agricultural Development

Mr. Bullard: asked the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation what action he is taking to assist overseas countries in agricultural development, in the light of the recommendations of his

Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carr: I am publishing today the first Report of my Advisory Committee together with an account of the work of my Department in this field. I should like to thank Mr. Bawden, the Chairman of the Committee, and his colleagues for their valuable Report which has been accepted as the basis of our work.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the need to avoid the wholesale withdrawal of agricultural staff from the countries getting independence?

Mr. Carr: This is a very great need. It is interesting and encouraging to note that, despite the changed conditions, there are still 1,900 specialists in this sphere overseas compared with 2,200 in 1956, a relatively small decline.

Retired Persons (Recruitment)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he is taking to encourage retired persons with appropriate qualifications to undertake work in developing countries.

Mr. Carr: Retired members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are often recruited for further assignments overseas. I agree that qualified people near the end of their normal careers at home may be able to give valuable service overseas and I am encouraging such recruitment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I appreciate the work that civil servants can do, but will the Minister agree that a number of other particularly qualified people, doctors, vets and so on, can do useful work in developing countries? Will he give details of the steps he is taking to encourage them?

Mr. Carr: For example, when I and my officers visit universities we bring this point particularly to their attention. On a recent trip to Malaya I was glad to find three such persons in position in Malaya.

Doctors and Sister Tutors

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation how many doctors and sister tutors have been


seconded for duty in developing countries since the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the recommendations of the Porritt Committee.

Mr. Carr: Nineteen doctors but no sister tutors. Two senior nurses, however, have been sent out to teaching posts.

Mr. Boyden: Is not this shocking in view of the fact that the Porritt Committee, when making its recommendations two years ago, said then that the secondment of sister tutors was urgent? The right hon. Gentleman's Department has had at least a year since then to approve the recommendations. Why this indecision?

Mr. Carr: The question relates only to secondment which is a small part of the D.T.C. medical activities. Since last March 115 qualified medical staff and nearly 100 nursing staff, in addition to those I have mentioned, have been recruited and sent overseas. It was because of the urgent need to do this that we set up the Porritt Committee to advise my Department and to influence the medical profession.

Mr. Boyden: This is one of the things the Committee recommended. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a report in the near future about the first year's working of the Porritt recommendation so that we can see what is going on?

Mr. Carr: The first year is still a way from being completed. I am considering the point. I am sure the House will realise that we cannot compel people in these categories to go overseas; we must persuade.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Are not some sort of arrangements made for secondment to apply to sister tutors and other nurses going abroad, as in the teaching profession?

Mr. Carr: It is much more difficult in the medical profession. This is one of the matters which we have asked the Porritt Committee to go into most urgently.

Technicians

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply

of technicians in Commonwealth countries, for the purpose of servicing British-manufactured equipment, and for training Commonwealth citizens in the use of British manufactured machine tools and other engineering equipment.

Mr. Carr: Assistance in the field of technical education, including the training of technical teachers is, of course, a major function of my Department. But any specialised training required for particular types of British equipment must be the responsibility of the firms supplying it.

Mr. Bence: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only very important that we should give assistance by providing and training technicians but that we should also provide British machinery and equipment for use by those technicians in their training?

Mr. Carr: I certainly agree. If, for example, the hon. Member can ever visit the Institute of Technology in Delhi he will see £650,000 worth of equipment.

Mr. Bence: I shall gladly go there if the right hon. Gentleman will pay my fare.

Economic, Social and Educational Research

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will give details of research grants by his Department in the fields of economic, social and educational research in relation to the needs of developing countries.

Mr. Carr: Since the detailed list of these grants is lengthy, I am, with permission, circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for doing that, may I ask him to bear in mind that these particular subjects are vitally important in the developing countries and the information so far is that they do not receive as much priority as agriculture and medicine? Will he try to put greater emphasis on these kinds of research?

Mr. Carr: I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. The trouble in this field, as he knows as well as anyone, is that everything is extremely urgent and fixing priorities is very difficult.

Following is the information:

LIST Of ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH SCHEMES MADE IN THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL, 1962 TO 21ST FEBRUARY, 1964 AND FINANCED FROM THE RESEARCH SUBHEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT'S VOTE*


Scheme No.
Benefiting Country
Description of Scheme
Amount of Grant



£


1333
…
Uganda
…
Documentary Study of Some Problems of Public Administration in Uganda
480


1334
…
Aden
…
Study of the Social Structure of the Hureidha, Aden
1,925


1337
…
Kenya
…
Study of the Agricultural Credit Requirements of African Farmers in Kenya
1,970


1338
…
General
…
Comparison of the Evolution of the Public Services in the British West Indies and British Africa
300


1348
…
Northern Rhodesia
Study of the 1962 Northern Rhodesia Elections
1,200


1268
…
The West Indies
…
Survey of the Needs of Youth in the West Indies (supplementary provision)
24


1352
…
Barbados, The Leeward Islands, The Windward Islands.
Programme of Economic Research in the Eastern Caribbean
6,289


1353
…
Basutoland
…
Study of Incentives to Local Action in Community Development in Basutoland 
2,000


1355
…
Kenya
…
Appointment of Historian to the East African Institute of Social Research to assist in a study of the effects of Land Consolidation in Kenya
3,210


1238A
…
Kenya
…
Investigations into Customary Law in Kenya (supplementary provision)
3,317


1367
…
Kenya
…
Study of District Administration in Kenya, 1895–1945
3,100


1373
…
Hong Kong
…
Publication of a Collection of Documents Illustrating the History of Hong Kong
225


1334A
…
Aden
…
Study of the Social Structure of Hureidha (supplementary provision)
120


1348A
…
Northern Rhodesia
Study of the 1962 Northern Rhodesia Elections (supplementary provision)
330


876C
…
East Africa
…
Preparation of a Regional History of East Africa (supplementary provision)
996


1389
…
Nigeria
…
Study of the Nigerian Public Services
600


1390
…
West Cameroons
…
Preparation of a Social and Economic History of the West Cameroons
2,900


1148A
…
General
…
Study of the World's Coffee-Producing Areas (supplementary provision)
880


1304A
…
South East Asia
…
Demographic Research in Borneo territories (supplementary provision)
400


1390A
…
West Cameroons
…
Preparation of a Social and Economic History of the West Cameroons (supplementary provision)
30


1461
…
Uganda
…
Documentary study of some Problems of Public Administration in Uganda (supplementary provision)
10


1485
…
West Indies
…
Contribution towards the running costs of the West Indies Institute of Social and Economic Research for the year 1963–64 
28,545


1334B
…
Aden
…
Study of the Social Structure of the Hureidha (supplementary provision)
300


1337A
…
Kenya
…
Study of the Agricultural Credit Requirements of African Farmers in Kenya (supplementary provision)
175


1496
…
Nigeria
…
Study of the Adaptation of Nigerian Workers to Industrial Employment
15,000


1497
…
Central Africa
…
Contribution towards the running costs of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute for the year ended 31st December, 1963
5,000


1518
…
Tanganyika
…
Ethnographic Survey of the Fipa and Related Peoples of South West Tanganyika
800


1334C
…
Aden
…
Study of the Social Structure of the Hureidha (supplementary provision)
50


1373A
…
Hong Kong
…
Publication of a Collection of Documents Illustrating the History of Hong Kong (supplementary provision)
20


1509
…
General
…
Publication Costs for Social Science and Economic Reports
3,000



Total
£83,196

* Schemes made prior to 1st April, 1962, were included in the Returns of Schemes made and of Loans Approved under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau

Mr. Loveys: asked the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation whether he intends to make the services of the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau more widely available.

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. The Bureau will in future accept all officers recruited in the United Kingdom for service on pensionable terms or long-term contract with dependent Governments who lose their offices as a result of constitutional change.

Mr. Loveys: Does this include officers from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? May I press my right hon. Friend once again to bear in mind the need of local government officers who do not receive information from the Bureau?

Mr. Carr: In reply to the first part of that question, the answer is Yes, Sir, provided such officers were initially recruited in the United Kingdom. I am afraid the Bureau does not cover local government officers unless they were first recruited in this country and transferred to local government service overseas. I shall keep in mind the point my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I cannot give any undertaking about it.

Latin America (Technical Experts)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Technical Co-operation what plans he has for increasing the number of experts working in Latin America; and what further visits are being arranged by his Department's professional advisers.

Mr. Carr: If recruitment is successful I hope the number of experts in Latin America will rise to 70 during the coming year, compared with about 35 at the moment. Further visits by two of my Department's professional advisers have already been arranged.

Mr. Digby: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if 70 is not rather a small number to make an impression on 208 million people? Will my right hon. Friend hear in mind that this is a part of the world where British help is particularly welcome and useful?

Mr. Carr: I am glad of my hon. Friend's interest in this part of the world. It is only in the last two years that our technical assistance programmes have been extended to this region and that we have been able to pay attention to this matter, but I hope that this is only a beginning.

Administrative Staff

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what is the present number of his administrative staff; and how many are on secondment from other Departments.

Mr. Carr: 73 and 44, respectively.

Mr. Thomson: Would not the Minister agree that these figures are very disturbing? Is it not very unsatisfactory that an important new Department like his should depend on so many administrative staff who are on temporary secondment from other Departments of State and are bound to some extent to be looking over their shoulders at their former Departments? Will the Government take this seriously and try to get a proper establishment for the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Carr: I can assure the hon. Member that we are taking the matter seriously. Beyond that I cannot comment at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Buildings of Historic or Architectural Interest

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the average period between the issue of provisional lists and statutory lists of buildings of historic or architectural interest in 1963, 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959, 1958, and 1957.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): The average periods vary from a maximum of four and a quarter years in 1960 to a minimum of two years in 1963, but I will, with permission, circulate the detailed figures for the years concerned in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Cooke: While thanking my hon. Friend for the details he has given, may I ask if he will not agree that it would be as well if this whole process could be completed as soon as possible?

Mr. Corfield: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I would hope that we would be able to speed these things up, but he will appreciate that one has to look at these matters against the scale of operations involved and that this varies considerably from area to area.

Following are the figures:


1957
3 years


1958
3¼ years


1959
3¾ years


1960
4¼ years


1961
3½ years


1962
2¾ years


1963
2 years

The improvement in 1962 and 1963 was due to a number of lists with few buildings of interest being dealt with exceptionally quickly.

Beeching Plan (Land)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to draw the attention of local planning committees to the problems which will arise of change of user as more railways are closed under the Beeching Plan.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any special need for guidance; but if my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind, he will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that there is need for change of user as disused railways will become theoretically agricultural land although in fact they are derelict land? Are not some steps necessary to be taken by the Minister to give guidance to local planning authorities which otherwise might take no action at all?

Mr. Corfield: It is not for local planning authorities to bring forward applications for change of user unless they own the land or have an arrangement with the Railways Board.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is substance in this Question, bearing in mind what has happened in the West Midlands? I

have it "straight from the horse's mouth", if that is not an indelicate expression, that the planning provisions for overspill in the West Midlands were not taken into consideration when the data for the Beeching Plan were prepared and even now lines are being closed in areas which have been developed since the Beeching Plan was published.

Mr. Corfield: With due respect to the hon. Member, that is a totally different question from the Question on the Order Paper, which relates to change of user resulting from land being given up.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps the Government are taking to work out the cost to local authorities of the application of the Beeching and Buchanan proposals? How much is it likely to cost? How on earth can local authorities afford it under the present system of financing local government?

Mr. Corfield: I should be delighted to go into that, but this Question deals with the application to derelict land.

Town Centre Schemes

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government proposes to give to local authorities planning town centres in meeting the heavy cost of the purchase of land and property for this purpose.

Mr. Corfield: Local authorities are being given power to defer repayment of loans for a limited period during the unremunerative stages of town centre redevelopment schemes. Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend informed the House on 10th February, the Government accept the need to overhaul the existing system of planning and highway grants in light of the Buchanan Report, and this is being examined jointly by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Brockway: What is the Department doing about the extortionate increase in land values? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that in Slough High Street in June last year it cost the council £133,000 for a 38 ft. frontage, which works out at £1 million per acre? Is he aware that this year


the council has had to pay at the rate of £2 million an acre for shops in the High Street? What is he going to do about this robbery of the community?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that by definition land in a town centre is limited in supply. The only way that either my right hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite will lower the cost of such land is to increase the supply.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember that it is now some months since his right hon. Friend expressed the view that there was need for new machinery to secure the public acquisition of land? When may we expect a statement about the establishment of this new machinery?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he was referring in that context to major plans for town redevelopment, which is a rather different matter from town centre redevelopment.

Mr. Hocking: What advice has been given to local authorities to draw their attention to the need to redevelop their town centres by the normal commercial methods of co-operation with property companies? Has advice been given to this effect?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has published a bulletin on the subject which has been sent to all local authorities. I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory replies to the last two Questions, I indicate that I wish to raise these matters on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but I think that the hon. Member by rule has to apply that notice to one Question only, otherwise we get into a muddle.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many town centre schemes were approved in 1963.

Mr. Corfield: Twenty-three.

Mr. Boyden: This is far too slow. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that a greater sense of urgency is needed in his own Department and

that he ought to convey that to the local authorities?

Mr. Corfield: Yes. I agree entirely that we ought to speed up, and we are endeavouring to do so. Certain proposals will be put to local authorities very shortly, and arrangements are being made in my Department to speed up this procedure. I am glad to say that already there is quite a marked increase in the pace at which it is being dealt with.

Mr. Sydney Irving: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that he told me that there were fifty-two outstanding in June last year, let alone those which have come in since? Does he not recognise that this is a very serious deterioration in the last eight or nine months? Is it not holding up the vital work of remodernising our town centres? Will he do something about it quickly?

Local Government Reorganisation (Northumberland)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what study he has made of the resolution passed at a meeting of Northumberland County District Council on 23rd January regarding local government reorganisation, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Blyth; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Most of the resolution is devoted to criticisms of the Local Government Commission's proposals for Tyneside. These objections will no doubt be pursued at the local inquiry which is to open in Newcastle next month. I cannot comment on them in advance. As for the last point in the resolution, I believe that re-organisation in some form is urgently needed if local government is to play a fully effective part in the long term rehabilitation of the North-East.

Mr. Milne: It is pleasing to note that an inquiry is being held but is the Minister aware that the severance of North Tyneside from the rest of Northumberland flies in the face of the recommendations of the White Paper on Regional Development arising from the visits of the Lord President of the


Council to the North-East? If the Government are to be converted to planning, let it be proper planning. Will the Minister undertake, following this inquiry, to receive a deputation from Northumberland County Council to discuss this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the implication drawn by the hon. Gentleman from the White Paper. All the arguments that lie behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question can be put at the inquiry. It is my job to consider the findings of the inquiry. I fear that I cannot undertake to receive a deputation.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that the main point is the question of the linking up of local government boundaries with the need to bring new industries to the North-East? These are two Government recommendations which are in direct conflict with each other and which are preventing the industrial development of the area. This needs looking into.

Detergents (Foam Nuisance)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps are now being taken to prevent the foam nuisance, at sewerage works and in rivers, caused by detergents.

Mr. Corfield: Most detergents are now far more readily broken down at sewage disposal works than those produced three or four years ago. More improvement is needed. But manufacturers are now developing still more oxidisable materials and are preparing to produce these in large quantities. The Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents will be reporting progress later this year.

Mrs. Slater: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that when travelling on a train and passing sewerage works and rivers, particularly if there is a wind, one sees that there is a tremendous amount of foam still in the detergents? Local authorities which try to break down this foaming agent are put to considerable expense. Is it not time that his Department made quite sure that the detergent manufacturers put in a material at the source which could break down the foaming agent?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that about 70 per cent. of the detergents now used are based on this softer base which reduces the foam by about 50 per cent. There are now signs of an even softer material proving commercially possible and, if this comes about, we will no doubt see an even further improvement.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister have another look at this matter, because if he makes inquiries he will find that a town like Castleford has had as much as 6 ft. to 7 ft of detergent foam in the streams on one occasion? Will he also look at the implications of this on places like Doncaster, where the River Don has had a tremendous amount of this foam floating down it? Will the hon. Gentleman show a greater appreciation of the necessity for doing something constructive and at least expedite the publication of the report of the Committee which has been considering this important problem for a long time?

Mr. Corfield: This Committee reports every year. Its report for this year is still to come.

Disused Burial Grounds, London

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what information he has on the area of disused burial grounds in the Greater London area, arising from his survey of the use of land in that area.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has made no survey of land use in the Greater London area.

Mr. Lubbock: Would it not be a good idea to look at this matter in the light of the shortage of land in the Greater London area? In particular will the Minister consider removing the prohibitions on building contained in the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, after the lapse of a fixed number of years of an Order in Council made under that Act?

Mr. Corfield: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, local authorities are able to obtain the detailed information to which he referred, and no doubt do so. On the second part, I must ask the hon. Member


to await the outcome of the review of the general law on burial and cremation when that Act will be considered.

Mr. J. Wells: Will my hon. Friend look into this matter more closely and find out more precisely just what is the policy of the Liberal Party on building houses in graveyards?

Bedworth Development Plan

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will give his approval to the comprehensive development area map of Bedworth in the administrative county of Warwick, into which his inspector held a public local inquiry on 9th July last and about which the clerk of the council wrote on 6th January, 1964.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has a number of modifications in mind. The Department will very shortly be writing about these to the county and the urban district councils with a view to arranging a meeting to discuss them.

Mr. Bowles: Does the Minister not realise that this is really and truly a slum clearance scheme; that only four buildings will remain if the scheme goes through? Has it not taken a tremendously long time for the Ministry to have put the matter in hand, and cannot something be done to expedite this meeting and a decision on this scheme?

Mr. Corfield: The meeting will take place soon, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the main delay has been due to the necessity of bringing these proposals in line with the Buchanan recommendations.

Caravan Sites, Kent

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the fact that the proposal to provide 10 permanent caravan sites in Kent for gypsies and other travellers resulted from the survey requested by his Department which revealed the need for sites for 127 families, what steps have been taken so that these families can be identified as the camps become available, to avoid the danger that many of the traditional caravan dwellers will be left out and

the places taken by house dwellers who are, in substantial numbers, attracted to leaving behind their homes and debts to take up a caravan life.

Mr. Corfield: The only practical method of dealing with this problem is careful selection of tenants for these caravan sites. This is a matter for the local authority concerned.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that since the proposals for camping sites in Kent were made more caravans have gone into the county and that the situation is worse than ever? Is he not aware that at my site at Cobham I have had many applications from householders wishing to take up caravan life for various reasons? Since applicants for council houses are required to register, is it not essential that something similar should be introduced to ensure that genuine caravan families are not squeezed out and, if this is not done, how is the problem to be successfully tackled?

Mr. Corfield: I was not aware of any specific cases of caravaners having recently left houses in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am certain that local authorities, which have a lot of experience in assessing the local connection in cases of houses allocation, will be able to handle this matter; that is, in cases of allocating caravan sites.

Rates (Old People)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what grants will be available to rating authorities in Accrington, Rishton, Church, Clayton-le-Moors and Oswaldtwistle, respectively, in respect of old people under the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill.

Mr. Corfield: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hynd: Do the local authorities have the necessary information about the number of old people on which the grants will be based, or will this information be circulated to them?

Mr. Corfield: The latest figures are still to be circulated, though I have no doubt that the local authorities can make a fair estimate on the figures for last year.

Following are the figures:

Preliminary estimates of the amounts which will be payable under Clause 1 of the Bill are:

£


Accrington Borough
7,520


Rishton Urban District
1,275


Church Urban District
300


Clayton-le-Moors Urban District
725


Oswaldtwistle Urban District
2,420

The figures are based on 1961 data and subject to correction in the light of later information.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Slough

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what decision he has reached on the request of the Slough Borough Council for authorisation of its plan to erect 2,431 houses between 1963 and 1969.

Sir K. Joseph: In January my Department sent the council a letter, of which the hon. Member has had a copy saying that I wanted to reserve a decision on its proposals for 1965 to 1969 until it could show its capacity to handle the greatly increased programmes requested by it and approved in full for 1963 and 1964. The council has accepted this.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the desperate housing situation in Slough caused by people pouring into the town, meaning overcrowding, meaning young people cannot get a house to live in when they get married and meaning that there is general house hunger? Is he aware that in the letter to which he referred he made two points, first that the programme which the Slough Council has put forward would be ahead of the general rate of increase in the Government's expanded housing programme? Is he really saying that his great housing programme will not allow 349 houses a year? Secondly, he says that extra work would be put on to the building industry without any regard to its capacity. What about blocks of offices? What about luxury houses?

Mr. Speaker: What about the length of supplementary questions?

Sir K. Joseph: I am very glad to see that the local authority is doubling, indeed trying to treble, its rate of house building. I have approved treble the previous programme for 1963 and 1964. As soon as I can see that it can in fact increase its performance in this way, I can give a decision on the later programme.

Rent Books

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to prohibit landlords from writing decontrolled in the rent books of tenants of controlled houses.

Sir K. Joseph: While I deplore such action by landlords, I have heard only of the one case reported to me by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), and I hardly think on the evidence that legislation would be justified.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that this Question arises from a letter I sent to him about a Salford widow who had lived for thirty-one years in her controlled house without a penny of arrears, against whom this kind of threat was tried, although since I wrote to the Minister the rent has not been raised? As the Minister replied to me that he took a serious view of this kind of thing when I wrote to him about a rather similar case of a 70-year-old pensioner in a neighbouring street to whom an eviction order had been sent by registered post, will he now take legal action in both cases?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that these practices are on a wide enough scale to justify legislation. Such malpractices, if they exist in a few cases, do not diminish in any degree the controlled status of the tenancy.

Mr. Fletcher: Ought it not to be an offence for a landlord to put any untrue information in a rent book?

Sir K. Joseph: There is power in the local authorities to prosecute for an


offence against the Act requiring full information to be put in rent books. I should like to consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir C. Osborne: Ought not this matter to be kept in perspective? Although a case like this is deplorable and is deplored on both sides of the House, should it not be remembered that there are hundreds of thousands of cases and that this is only one out of hundreds of thousands?

Evictions

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to prohibit landlords from gaining violent entry to evict tenants who have got into difficulties with their rents following big rent increases resulting from the operation of the Rent Act.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am advised that it is already an offence for a landlord to gain entry forcibly.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that, since I wrote to him about this shocking case of an employee of one of London's largest firms of landlords, which had secured an eviction order, smashing the window of this tenant with a hammer to secure entry—since I wrote to the Minister and since the eviction order was obtained—the clothing and furniture of this family were piled in the open in the rain for seven days? Will the Minister give his support to the Bill introduced by my hon. and well-informed Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), which would suspend the operation of a court order until suitable alternative accommodation had been found?

Sir K. Joseph: This entry was under a court order and I understand that the tenants have found alternative accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will make new Ministerial appointments to strengthen the supervision of Government-placed contracts and avoid the overpayment to contrac-

tors as was revealed in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report in relation to the Bloodhound missile project.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I do not think such appointments would further the object the hon. Member has in mind. The placing of contracts is the duty of individual Departments for which their Ministers are responsible. There is machinery to co-ordinate these activities between Departments.

Mr. Stonehouse: While appreciating that there are further investigations now taking place into the Ferranti affair, may I ask the Prime Minister if there is not ample confirmation of the fact that this £2 million overpayment is a scandal of great dimensions and should not action now be taken in regard to the Ministry of Aviation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's Question was directed to the appointment of additional Ministers and that I have turned down. I think that any further improvement of machinery had better wait the report from Sir John Lang.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN PRIVILEGE (JUDGMENT)

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now bring to the attention of all Departments the observations made by Lord Denning, Lord Justice Harman and Lord Justice Salmon regarding claims for Crown privilege in the case of Merricks and Another v. Nott-Bower and Others; and whether Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations on this subject made in 1956 by the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council to the then Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the observations of the Court of Appeal on Crown Privilege in the case of Merricks v. Nott-Bower and Others; and whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the responsibility for deciding whether documents should be disclosed in litigation should be transferred from the executive to the courts, as is the case in Scotland.

The Prime Minister: A full report of this case has now been received and the implications of the judgments are being studied.

Mr. Foot: Arising out of that reply, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that not only in this case but in many earlier cases Her Majesty's judges have been extremely critical of claims for Crown privilege? Does he not also appreciate that it is apparent that in many instances justice is being subordinated to mere administrative convenience? Ought there not to be a distinction between cases where national security is involved and where there is merely a communication involving no security between officials? Since the Bar Council made its recommendations seven years ago, how much longer do Her Majesty's Government need to consider this matter?

The Prime Minister: As long as is required really to understand this judgment.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that this is not the first time that the courts have condemned the attitude of Departments in claiming Crown privilege unnecessarily? Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why in Scotland Scottish judges are entitled to see documents for which Crown privilege is claimed and can decide whether or not it is a good claim, yet the same practice is not allowed to English judges in English cases?

The Prime Minister: We of course treat this judgment as important. That is why we want time to study it. As far as Scottish law is concerned. I know that the practice is different. One of the matters to be considered is, no doubt, whether we should make English law similar to that applying in Scotland.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he is not addressing his mind to the precise ambit of the Question? Will he look at the matter again and reconsider it with a view to seeing that justice is done?

The Prime Minister: My Answer was that we would look at the matter. That is what we are doing. As soon as possible I will come forward to the House

with a proposal; but we must study the judgment, which has only just been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham on Saturday, 18th January, on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 1964 was going to be a marvellous year for expansion? He said it again last night. Since the other bouts of expansion we have had in the last 12 years have been promptly followed by wage restraint, credit restriction and a balance of payments crisis, would the Prime Minister say what it is that makes the present period of expansion different from all the others?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading the speech I made last night, which corresponded very closely with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which I gave the evidence on which we conclude that it is likely that expansion will continue. We said, both of us in our speeches, that should there be undue pressure on the economy, then the Chancellor—[Interruption.]—has the necessary instruments with which to deal with it.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister not aware, however, that in the speech referred to the Chancellor stressed the need for an incomes policy and that the Prime Minister, whose speech we did him the honour of studying last night, and on five other occasions, has stressed only wages restraints? Assuming that this is not a Freudian slip repeated six times, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he accepts that with an incomes policy there must be parallel policies in the matter of profits and rents? If so. will he tell us what plans he has to institute a complete reversal of Government policy in these matters?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that this arises out of the Question. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I have constantly


said that of course management and workers must share in an incomes policy, but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would give us a little more help in keeping wage demands within bounds.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that my question related to rents, which he ducked as he did on Thursday night on television? Secondly, is he not aware when asking for my help in speaking to the trade unions—

Mr. Hirst: Get another drummer.

Mr. Wilson: I hope that the Prime Minister took note of the question on rents. Is he not aware when asking for my help in talking to the unions that last July at the conference on the Transport and General Workers' Union I made an appeal for an incomes policy? Is he further aware that at the Labour Party conference this was passed by an overwhelming majority, involving all the unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is impossible for his Government to make these appeals? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he feels that his Government, of which he has been a prominent member for many years, can make this appeal in view of the pay pause, the interference with collective bargaining and arbitration awards two years ago? [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] While we are being flattered by the Prime Minister's request that we make an appeal which he cannot make, does he not agree that this is an appeal which can be made only—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we treat the Prime Minister's Question Time as though it were a reception at London Airport we shall make very little headway.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I want the help of the House. The House will be so aggrieved with itself if we do not get through more Questions.

Mr. Wilson: I know that the Prime Minister is even claiming credit for the Beatles. Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that this appeal must be made by a Government which in a matter of pay negotiations has clean hands?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and that Government is ours.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development on Commonwealth trade at the New Zealand Society dinner on 5th February represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The British Government's policy is to increase our trade in both directions with New Zealand as with other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that this disastrous speech has done a great deal of harm to our relations with New Zealand? Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister of new Zealand has called it a misrepresentation and that it has embarrassed our trading relations with New Zealand? If we want to win friends and trade, is this the way to do it? Has the Prime Minister sent an apology to New Zealand for the speech?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No apology has been sent to New Zealand, and none is necessary. What my right hon. Friend was saying was that we had adopted a quota system for New Zealand butter in this country, with the result that we were paying higher prices here for butter than we would otherwise do.

Mr. Bottomley: Has the Prime Minister had any representations from the New Zealand Government?

The Prime Minister: I should like to have notice of that. There have been no representations to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will initiate all-party talks to consider the functions and constitution of the House of Lords, with particular reference to the future of hereditary peers.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister recollect that the Preamble to


the 1911 Parliament Act suggested that reform of the House of Lords should he undertaken very quickly? In view of the fact that more than 50 years have elapsed since then, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time that we started to modernise along the corridor of the Palace of Westminster? Does he realise that a quorum along the corridor is three, and does he not feel appalled at the prospect of three nonagenarians armed with ear trumpets preventing the modernisation of Britain? How can the right hon. Gentleman defend the hereditary principle when he himself contracts out of it?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member's timing was a little out of date. It was only on 10th February that he put down a Motion to abolish the House of Lords. He has now come on—he now only wants to reform it. When in another place I and my colleagues put forward a proposal for the reform of the House of Lords in 1961, the hon. Member and his colleagues all voted it down.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Motion to which he referred was a classic example of how we can modernise by abolition?

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not something to be said for an investigation of this kind? Would it not afford the Prime Minister a means of escaping back to another place and would we not bear that with our customary fortitude?

The Prime Minister: There may be a case for considering reform. All I am saying is that when we put it forward ourselves hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite turned it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (EXPORT OF BUSES)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Johnson about the export of buses by Great Britain to Cuba.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answers I gave to Questions on the 18th of February.

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, but in the Answer to that Question the Prime Minister said that he was quite satisfied that the Americans had no intention of

imposing any kind of embargo. If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman explain to me how it is that with 20 million tons of merchant shipping we are unable to get a single ship to carry a valuable export order to Cuba and we have to go to Communist Germany to obtain these facilities? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why British shipping is so afraid and so intimidated if there is no blacklisting? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Americans are not intent on making difficulties for British shipping, will he read the report made today by the Chamber of Shipping and can he say whether Leylands asked the Admiralty whether it could help the company by providing an aircraft carrier? If Leylands did ask, what was the reason for the refusal?

The Prime Minister: The Question which I was asked the other day was whether the American Government were behind the boycott of British trade and I said that I was satisfied that they were not. Of course, the United States Foreign Assistance Act, 1963, requires the President to take such action against countries which did not by 14th February prohibit their ships from carrying goods to Cuba and the American Government are bound by their legislation. I am not approving it, of course—

Mr. H. Wilson: While we all agree about the line taken about the export of buses by Leylands, we were not quite clear last week about the Prime Minister's answers. Was the right hon. Gentleman equally vehement in making representations to President Johnson about the blacklisting of British ships as about the question of trade in buses and other things with Cuba?

The Prime Minister: I constantly, all the time, tell the American Government how important shipping is to us. We deplore this type of legislation, but of course Congress passed it and the American Government are bound by it.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the Prime Minister seek some contact with British shipping lines to ascertain from them why it is that they are afraid to carry legitimate British exports to Cuba?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Certainly I will have conversations, if necessary, with British shipping lines, but they


must judge for themselves what trade is profitable and what is not.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House. The House should know that in accordance with what I understand to be the general wish of the House, I propose to appoint an ad hoc Committee, with the following terms of reference:—

To review, with regard to the accommodation of this House, plans for the redevelopment of the Palace of Westminster/Bridge Street area, taking into account:

1. the Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee which reported in November, 1962;
2. the tentative proposals set out in Sir William Holford's preliminary outline scheme, described in the booklet "Accommodation for the House of Commons, (July, 1963)";
3. the views on this scheme expressed in the debate on Accommodation in the House of Commons on 1st August, 1963.

The following Members have agreed to serve on the Committee:

The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), Chairman;

The right hon Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden);
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn);
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen);
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle);
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon);
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke);
The hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet);
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr);
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell);
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers).

BILL PRESENTED

RESALE PRICES

Bill to restrict the maintenance by contractual and other means of minimum resale prices in respect of goods supplied for resale in the United Kingdom; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Heath; supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Deedes, and Mr. Edward du Cann; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

COLLEGES RATING RELIEF (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE)

3.32 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to include the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in the First Schedule to the Rating and Valuation Act 1961.
The purpose of my Bill is short and simple. It is to include the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in Schedule 1 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961. By rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) should have introduced this Motion. Equipped with the ingenuity obtained as a leader of the Greek guerrillas in the last war, and fortified with the reputation of a double first, he would have deployed a most formidable argument. But, alas, he is exposed to a torture more exquisitely refined than any torture invented by a Chinese emperor for his victims, namely, the torture of silence on the Front Bench. Therefore, it falls to me, who obtained only a third and scarcely deserved that, to try to do the best that I can.
I have only one qualification. Having associations with Oxford and Cambridge, I may perhaps classify myself as the original Oxbridge model, somewhat antique, battered and distinctly rattling, but still holding the road. The cities of Oxford and Cambridge find no counterpart in these islands. During the course of centuries the love and piety of successive generations, princes, priests and benefactors have endowed the colleges which are the glory of those cities and which cover a large area of them and, therefore, at the same time, are affected by their rateable value.
Quite rightly, these colleges are classified as charities exempt from full rates; but this means, on the other hand, that the ratepayers of Oxford and Cambridge have to pay more on that account. I would, therefore, like to submit, first, that the colleges should be added to the Schedule of the 1961 Act. This would mean, in fact, that, unfortunately, they would have to pay more rates, but I propose to compensate them from equivalent grants from the University Grants Committee.
There are formidable precedents for this argument. In the Second Reading debate, 1960, during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, which my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government described as formidable, he pointed out that many of the colleges already received aid directly from the universities through the University Grants Committee, and even more that certain colleges both in Oxford and Cambridge have received in the past direct grants from the University Grants Committee.
Furthermore, during the course of the Second Reading the then Minister said that those institutions, charitable and otherwise, which would be added to the First Schedule would be compensated by an equal amount from the Universtiy Grants Committee. I bring forward these arguments of my hon. Friend —I trust serious arguments—for I know that if I am to win his ear, trained and fortified in the intellectual fortress of All Souls, I have to produce arguments of logic and precedent. Perhaps they may help to answer the type of conversation which I can picture occurring in Whitehall. The Minister will say, "Such a move would form a precedent. You will be hounded and harried by endless local authorities and, in fact, it will be untidy administration."
Alas, the phrase "tidy administration" cannot very often cover human nature, with its hopes and fears, likes and dislikes, and, certainly, has not done so with the cities of Oxford and Cambridge on this occasion. But having appealed, I hope with logic and reason, to my right hon. Friend I shall, quite openly and without shame, bring another arrow out of my quiver. I shall appeal to his heart.
We have said that in terms of administration the cities of Oxford and Cambridge have no counterpart in these islands. That is more than certainly true in the realm of education and, above all, their beauty which, in fact, forms one of the great assets not only of these islands, but of the whole English-speaking world. When we think of Oxford we think surely of Tom Quod, whose space and proportions recall the imperial magnificence of Wolsey; we think of the garden of New College with its lawns and elms surrounded by the old city walls unchanged since the sentries of Charles I


patrolled upon them; and, above all, we think of that wonderful view from the Radcliff Camera over the towers, spires, gables and pinnacles of the city, recalling those fortresses illustrated in a medieval Book of Hours.
In Cambridge, we think of the great court of Trinity recalling Tennyson and Newton, of the arcadian beauty of the Backs, recalling a picture by Claude Lorraine or Richard Wilson; above all, I think of King's College whose windows, to me, transmit the light of Paradise, whose soaring lines make me feel that I have listened to the trumpet blast of the archangel.
These images have evoked loyalties all over the world, often in the campus of the American university, or the lecture rooms of one of the new universities in Africa and Asia. They bring, apart from these great spiritual appeals, material value as well. They bring tourists to the cities of Oxford and Cambridge and the presence of a large number of undergraduates brings wealth to the ratepayers.
Now, fortunately, the days of town and gown fights are quite past. We no longer hear the streets echoing with shouts and clattering feet, or the

cracking of skulls; but, alas, these ancient and most undesirable animosities could still be kept alive by a certain sense of injustice. The ratepayers of Oxford and Cambridge feel that they are paying extra rates on account of the presence of the colleges, and, even more—this is important—that they are being singled out as a unique case which has no counterpart in the rest of the country.
Therefore, I suggest that the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge be brought into the First Schedule to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, and that they be compensated to an equal degree by the University Grants Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir H. Kerr, Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Temple, and Mr. Robert Cooke.

COLLEGES RATING RELIEF (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE)

Bill to include the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge in the First Schedule to the Rating and Valuation Act 1961, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th March and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(SUPPLY OF PRODUCE TO CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING BUSINESSES.)

(1) A grant under section 4 of this Act or section 1(2) of the Horticulture Act 1960 (as amended by section 5 of this Act) shall not be made to an association whose business comprises the marketing of horticultural produce grown by its members unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the constitution of the association contains provision designed to secure that a sufficient proportion of the horticultural produce grown by a member is made available by him for marketing by the association.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to a grant under the said section 1(2) where application was made for the grant before the commencement of this Act.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
There are two Amendments having the same subject-matter, Mr. Speaker, namely, in Clause 4, page 6, line 10, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act
and in Clause 7, page 8, line 10, after "above" to insert:
and section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act".
I suggest that it might be convenient if we could consider these Amendments with the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who, unfortunately, is unable to be with us today because of illness, it falls to me to commend the new Clause to the House.
The Clause derives from the promise I gave in Committee to consider whether a provision could be incorporated in the Bill which would have the effect of pro-

moting a larger and steadier supply of members' produce to support the marketing facilities provided by the co-operatives to which they belong. This was an issue raised originally in Committee by hon. Members opposite, but I think that the whole House will be glad to know that it has been found possible to devise a suitable way of giving effect, through this new Clause, to the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).
The hon. Gentleman proposed that Ministers should be empowered to require a co-operative to bind its members to supply particular or ascertainable amounts presumably a specified percentage—of their produce to the co-operative business on pain of action for damages in the event of failure to do so. But, as was pointed out in Committee, and as was pointed out by the Departmental Working Party set up in 1960 to go into the whole question, there are other methods of achieving exactly the same result as the hon. Gentleman wanted. For example, there can be differential charging to penalise the less loyal members or a provision for expulsion or suspension of their membership. Methods of this kind can be just as effective as lawsuits.
The new Clause has, therefore, been cast in general terms so far as concerns the sanction for securing adequate support from the members of a co-operative. In other respects, it is, perhaps, more precise. It lays down that an over-riding qualification for eligibility for grant to a co-operative, whether under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme, 1960, or under Clause 4 of the Bill, shall be the existence of provisions in the co-operative's constitution which are designed to ensure that members will give it adequate support by supplying to it a reliable and sufficient volume of the produce which they grow.
My right hon. Friends are to retain discretion to decide generally the scope of the provisions which may be necessary in particular circumstances. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) referred in Committee to co-operatives the members of which grow a wide variety of horticultural produce. In this class of


case, it might be sufficient to require that if, after a period of time, it were found that a member had persistently failed to supply a reasonable proportion of his produce, he should be exposed to disciplinary action by his fellow members.
The new Clause is an effective but flexible method of achieving what we all desire. Before determining whether a grant should be made, an examination of the constitution of the co-operative will be made to establish whether the prior condition laid down in the Clause is met. If it is not, the co-operative will not be eligible for grant. On the other hand, the co-operatives are left free to choose which of the several sanctions open to them they wish to employ to meet the condition, or, in a particular and pardonable case of default, to waive all of them.
I hope that the new Clause and the subsequent Amendments will commend themselves to the House as fair and positive contribution to the strengthening of horticultural co-operatives.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I am sorry that the Minister is not here, and I hope that he will have a speedy recovery.
The Parliamentary Secretary had a large share of the burden in Committee and we are glad that he is in charge today, not, of course, for the reason that his right hon. Friend is ill, but because we hope that he will keep up the spirit with which he has started the proceedings. We are grateful for this concession.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who pressed this suggestion not only in Committee on this Bill but also when the Horticulture Act, 1960, was going through the House. He and other hon. Members on both sides sought then to safeguard the position of producer co-operatives. I pay tribute also to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who brought forward during our discussions in 1960 a Clause on similar lines.
We are grateful to the Minister. My hon. Friend sought to safeguard the interests of co-operatives assisted by means of grants, and it is only right and proper that individual members of these co-

operatives should fulfil their obligations. I am glad that there is to be a measure of flexibility and that it will be left to co-operatives to decide what type of sanction should be used. On the other hand, it is a useful safeguard that the constitution of a co-operative will be examined before a grant is given. We accept the new Clause and we hope that it will work satisfactorily.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "Food" to "may" in line 11 and to insert:
and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, acting jointly.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House, if generally acceptable, to discuss with this Amendment the consequential Government Amendments.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think that that would be by far the best way of proceeding. We can then discuss this group of Amendments together.
The Amendments are concerned with the responsibilities of Ministers in relation to Clause 1. May I begin by briefly reminding the House of the Orders procedure under Clause 1? The Government must first decide to which commodities the powers in the Clause are to be applied. They will then have to make a series of Orders. They will, first, have to specify the commodities to which the powers are to apply, then the levels of the minimum import prices, and then the machinery for imposing the levies, and the conditions attaching to allowances and reliefs, if any. Lastly, the actual rates of levy, allowance or relief would be able to be specified by Order.
Of course, an important operation like this is very closely bound up with our agricultural policy which is the joint responsibility of the three agriculture Ministers. Other Ministers, obviously, are concerned as well, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and


Trade. There will be full consultation among all the Ministers concerned. This is not the sort of thing one needs to write into a Bill, but when this Measure was being drafted we felt that it would be most convenient to leave the formal responsibility for making Orders to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture alone.
This was questioned in the Standing Committee, and it is something that can be argued on either side with equal force. One could say that the provisions of Clause 1 are closely bound up with domestic agricultural legislation and that the Orders should therefore be made by the three Ministers jointly; on the other hand, one could argue that these powers are vitally concerned with international trade and must at all costs be applied on a common basis throughout the United Kingdom.
I do not see that one can be dogmatic either way, but in the light of what was said in the Standing Committee the Government have tabled these Amendments so as to confer the main Order-making powers in Clause 1 on the three agriculture Ministers. That is to say, these three Ministers will be jointly responsible for making the different types of Orders I mentioned a moment ago, with the exception of those dealing solely with the rates of levies, allowances and reliefs that have been provided for in previous Orders.
I am sure that the House will understand that these latter Orders must be made quickly, and may, on occasion, have to be made frequently, to enable the rates of levy to reflect changes in market circumstances. In these circumstances, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture must retain sole responsibility for that particular type of Order, but that it is right that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary should be associated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in making the other types of Order.

Mr. William Ross: We, on this side, certainly note with appreciation that the Government have had second thoughts on the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we should not be dogmatic about this, but I must say that he was fairly dogmatic

about it in Committee. I do not wish to labour the point, but I could read out his remarks about how important and inevitable it was that this matter should be in the hands of one Minister. I would also remind him that, when he said that the subject was raised in Committee, it was raised only by one hon. Member, and he not on the Government side. In fact, it could not have been raised by a Scottish hon. Member on the Government side, because there was not a single Scottish Tory back bencher on that Committee—although they, in the main, represent Scottish agricultural interests.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was not on the Committee, and the Under-Secretary had managed to say four sentences in the 22 sittings we needed to reach Clause 22. On this vital matter he did not have a word to say—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), when in the Chair in Standing Committee, usually tells us that we should not interrupt from a sitting position. He, or the vice-chairman of the Scottish Tory Party, could have marked himself to serve on the Committee. As it was, there was not a Scottish Tory voice there at all. There was only the Under-Secretary of State, and he did not speak—he is as bad as the rest of the silent knights, although he has not yet achieved his knighthood.
This is a matter of very considerable importance, and the Government have had constitutional afterthoughts about it. It may be a very irksome business for English Ministers of Agriculture, but they have no responsibility for the wellbeing of agriculture in Scotland. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are very glad to see here today—this is the second day in succession when we have been able to see the right hon. Gentleman; it must be unique.
Orders specifying commodities are of interest and of very considerable concern to Scotland, and so are the levels of the import prices. The machinery is equally important. Scottish farmers may well have far more interest in some commodities than have English agriculturists or horticulturists. What surprises me, therefore, is that the Government should, in the first place, have left


Scotland out—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Northern Ireland."] I leave the Northern Ireland people to look after themselves—though they are as present here today as were the Scottish Tories in the Standing Committee.
It is shocking that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have allowed this kind of thing to have happened. I had Amendments on the Notice Paper dealing with the subject. It is true that they were starred Amendments, but they could have been adopted then and there had the Government indicated support for them. It was only after considerable debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—during which we had no indication that the Government would look on those Amendments favourably—that the Government realised that this constituted a rather large insult to Scotland and to the position of the Secretary of State.
I am glad that they have now changed their minds. It means that in relation to the day-to-day fixing, and the possibility of the varying of levies and prices, the Minister of Agriculture will work on his own, and will assume the powers of the other two Ministers, but I hope that even in respect of that there will, where it is possible, be full consultation with the Scottish Department of Agriculture.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for this constitutional afterthought, but I hope that in future the Government will appreciate that although this constitutional anomaly may be rather irksome they must accept the rights of Scottish Members and Ministers, and Scottish agriculturists, and will not repeat this error. We are getting fairly used to it.

Mr. Peart: Will no Scottish hon. Member opposite support my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)? This is a very important matter. When I referred to it on Second Reading I remarked that I was not sure of the functions of the Secretary of State, but now that we have had some clarification I should have thought that a Tory hon. Member would have had something to contribute. The powers given by the Bill are wide, sweeping and important, and, constitutionally, this is one of the most important Measures we have had for a very long time. I am sure that the

hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who has just entered the Chamber, will realise that the Bill gives Ministers powers in the economic sphere that no Minister has had for over a century.
I am glad that the Government have thought again about this subject. I hope that an hon. Member opposite will contribute to the debate and will pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising the matter in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 1 leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers aforesaid";

In page 2, line 6, leave out "he" and insert "they".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 2 to leave out lines 10 to 13.
The provision covered by this Amendment was added to the Clause in Committee as a result of an Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), and other hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East explained in Committee that the object behind this provision was to enable the Government to prohibit any imports which, at the time of import into the United Kingdom, were priced at above the market price in the exporting country plus a reasonable allowance for insurance and freight. In effect, this provision seeks to ensure that traders are not able to make excessive profits by buying at low prices in exporting countries and selling in the United Kingdom at our prescribed minimum import prices.
During the discussion upstairs on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", I took the opportunity to tell the Committee that the Government would need to deal with this provision on Report, and I do not think that any hon. Member will be surprised to hear that the Government consider it necessary to table this Amendment.
There are a number of reasons why we feel it necessary to do this. The arrangements on cereals which we have been discussing with our overseas suppliers are based on minimum import prices to be enforced, as necessary, by the charging of levies. Our objective has


been, as far as possible, to proceed by agreement with the overseas countries concerned. We hope that we shall be able to cover the greater part of our imports by arrangements under which exporting countries undertake to observe our minimum import prices. As long as they continue to do this, we are ready to arrange for imports from co-operating countries to be exempt from levies.
The purpose of these arrangements, as my right hon. Friend has explained on several occasions, is to place a floor in our import prices. The minimum import prices we have in mind are to be set at levels which will prevent the prices of imports from sagging to the unreasonably low levels which have from time to time undermined our cereals market. Thus, we are not seeking to erect a restrictive regime which would restrict supplies in order to raise the general level of prices. This is not our intention.
We have been discussing these proposals with our overseas suppliers, and, as my right hon. Friend announced in the House recently, we have now reached agreement in principle with our four major suppliers of cereals for cooperation in the proposed minimum import price system for cereals. But the physical restriction of supplies has no place in the arrangements which we are seeking to introduce. If prices fall below our minimum import prices, the imposition of levies will provide an effective means of dealing with the situation without the need to resort to quantitative restrictions or the prohibition of imports. It would clearly make it much more difficult to secure the co-operation of overseas suppliers in the measures we wish to introduce if we were to hold over their heads in this legislation the threat of physical controls, which in any case are no part of the Government's proposals for cereals.
The prohibition of imports as envisaged in the provision written into the Bill by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield, East upstairs would be bound to be detrimental to our general trading interests. Quantitative restrictions were, of course, a feature of the early post-war years when difficulties about the balance of payments were common. But now trading conditions are much freer, and it is in our interest that this state of affairs should con-

tinue. Our international obligations, and indeed those of most of our chief suppliers, preclude the use of quantitative restrictions except in certain special circumstances.
From these points of view, the powers in the provision added to the Bill in Committee would raise most difficult problems indeed. Moreover, this provision is unnecessary because there are already general powers to prohibit imports in legislation administered by the Board of Trade. There would be no reason in any case to duplicate in this legislation powers which already exist elsewhere.
It is also relevant to consider what the administration of this provision would involve. The Government would be required to ascertain what would be a representative domestic market price in countries exporting to the United Kingdom. I t would also be necessary to decide what would be a reasonable allowance for the cost of insurance and freight and—this is something which the provision ignores—a fair profit for the trader. The collection of this information might not be impossible, but it would present a formidable task. I go as far as to say that it would add an intolerable burden.
Quite apart from these objections which the Government see to the inclusion of a provision of this sort in the context of this legislation, I believe that the fears which prompted hon. Members opposite to move the Amendment in Committee are unfounded. As I tried to explain upstairs, those countries which conclude agreements with us will be taking steps at the export end to ensure that our minimum import prices are not undermined by the prices at which their goods are exported to our markets. Precisely how they do this is entirely a matter for them to decide. It might, for example, be through the agency of a central selling organisation, where it exists, or by some other means. But, clearly, this would prevent the sort of circumstances which hon. Members opposite have envisaged from arising.
Moreover, if any individual agreement country were failing for any reason to observe our minimum import prices we should apply a country levy to all imports of the commodity concerned from that country. This country levy would


be related to the general level of offering prices for the particular commodity from the country concerned and would not vary with the import prices of individual consignments. That is, it would be a flat rate levy on a country basis.
Turning to the non-agreement countries—those countries which have not been able to reach an agreement with us—we should, if representative offering prices for supplies from these countries fell below our minimum import prices, apply a general levy, which again would be on a flat-rate basis and related to the general level of offering prices and not to the price of any individual importation. Therefore, in the case of both the country levy and the general levy, the individual trader would have to face a flat-rate charge related to the generality of prices in each case and not to the price of the individual consignment. Clearly, he would not be able to take excessive profits since he would have to price his supplies to the United Kingdom in competition with other traders who would also be supplying our market.
I have explained why the Government consider that the provision which this Amendment seeks to delete is out of place in this legislation. Administratively, it would be extremely difficult and cumbersome to work and unnecessary as a safeguard against the circumstances which hon. Members opposite seem to envisage. As I have said, I do not think these circumstances can possibly arise. I therefore ask the House to accept our Amendment.

Mr. John Mackie: I think that those who supported our Amendment in Committee would agree that it was not as satisfactory as we should have wished. However, there was more than agreement among my hon. Friends in this matter, because we should not have carried the Amendment without the support of hon. Members opposite. Since the Committee stage, no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary and everybody concerned with the Bill has received a memorandum from the millers and merchants, the people who do this buying, and they have put exactly the same point as we put. It sticks out a mile to anyone in the trade that if anybody says, "We

are willing to pay a certain price for this commodity", one will not sell it below that price.
Our arguments have been bedevilled throughout because the Bill has been discussed as though it dealt with cereals only, but it deals with all the produce of this country. We must argue along the lines that the Bill applies to everything. To argue only about cereals does not help us at all. We made the point that although the Minister might come to an agreement with the major suppliers, it needs only a small quantity —say, two or three boatloads of a commodity like eggs or cereals—to lower the price in this country. The Minister can have agreement on a large scale for our main imports, but if small amounts come in at a lower price they will depress our market. Our view was that there should be power to prevent that sort of thing on an ad hoc basis.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be a difficult job to ascertain the price in another country and to find the rates of insurance. If his Department could not obtain this information by using the telephone for 10 minutes, I do not know what it is doing. It is ridiculous to use that argument.
The hon. Gentleman trotted out his two arguments, but they did not affect the question. If he reads the view of the millers and merchants about what will happen, the hon. Gentleman will see that he will not have any guide from a general levy that will enable him to impose his second levy. As soon as the price is reduced to the minimum, there will be no chance to apply a levy when somebody else undercuts.
The wording of the Clause is not as good as it could have been. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that some of us and some of his hon. Friends are not happy about it, and that is why he was defeated in Committee. Unless the hon. Gentleman says that he will do something about this important point, we shall have to take the matter to a Division.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Clearly, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said, if the wording of the Clause does not make sense internationally, it should not remain in the Bill. When, however, the


Socialist Government agreed to the G.A.T.T. in 1947, they made no provision for dealing with the Agriculture Act of that year, which was passed at about the same time. Therefore, we have a gap in dealing with both dumped produce or a product in which there is an excessive margin of imports.
Where I should like help from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is that in this new Measure there is no reference to the other powers that the Minister and the Government possess for dealing with dumped produce or with emergencies which may occur and which may completely upset the ruling market price in this country. In the Bill, there should have been a reference to the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Ac-,t, 1957, which, when it was introduced in the House of Commons, we were told was the proper way of dealing with dumped agricultural produce. It may be that it has not proved to be the case, but it might happen that if we were able later to get certain Amendments made in G.A.T.T., the 1957 Act could be of use.
When my hon. Friend says that it is too great a burden to place upon the Government to ask for information about the market or export price in another country, he has forgotten that in Sections 5 and 6 of the 1957 Act that burden is already placed upon the Government. There would be no difficulty, therefore, about getting this extra information.
4.15 p.m.
We must look not merely at the 1957 Act, but at Articles 6 and 19 of G.A.T.T. Clearly, Article 6 is not designed to deal with a country which has a system of guaranteed price support. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether that is not the best way of dealing with some of these agricultural price problems. which we are now meeting. In other words, could not a revision of Article 6 be used in conjunction with the measures which my hon. Friend is so wisely taking in Clause 1 of the Bill? Article 19 of G.A.T.T. deals with the very emergency which, presumably, my hon. Friend is contemplating in Clause 1 of the Bill: that is, unreasonable imports at an unreasonable price at a certain period of the year.
We agree that this proviso was badly drafted and hastily accepted and in referring to the proceedings in Standing Committee, although I was not a member, I find that it had no support in the voting by any hon. Member on this side. It was the big battalions of the party opposite who managed to win the day. They, therefore, must take full blame for this statutory error that was made in Committee upstairs. In the Bill, which will be of tremendous importance to agriculture, we ought to refer to these other powers which may be taken.
To illustrate the position, I will quote the example of the wheat market last year. The average import price of wheat from all countries over the year was 26s. 6d. per cwt. The price in France averaged 29s. 8d. per cwt. throughout the year, but the average import price of French wheat in this country was 22s. 2d. per cwt. Clearly, in the case of French wheat, we had an example of dumping, the average import price being 7s. 6d. per cwt. less than the declared market price in France.
When considering the seasonal position, the situation becomes even more acute. In the month of October, which is vital for our own farmers, because then the imported French wheat competes with our own harvest, the average price of French wheat was only 20s. 4d. per cwt. If we look at imports during that period or, indeed, during any other month, we find that no other wheat came into this country below 25s. per cwt. Therefore, the whole of this machinery having a minimum price with a "country" levy and a "general" levy is unnecessary in a year like last year for wheat provided that adequate steps are taken to prevent dumped French wheat coming into the country directly after the harvest.
That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend tie Minister, whose absence today we so much regret, to think again on this matter and at a later stage to insert the necessary wording to protect our position against dumping and also against emergency imports at unreasonable prices or in unreasonable quantities.
We all welcome the step that is being taken in the Bill. I do not criticise it. I criticise merely the drafting. I want


my hon. Friend to be ready to take action to get the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade brought up to date, because what was devised in 1947 is quite out of date for the conditions in general trading in 1964. It is time that all of us on both sides of the House of Commons looked again at this matter to find a convenient way of guaranteeing the stability not merely of our own agricultural industry, but also of the taxpayer, who is of importance, and who is completely excluded under the 1947 G.A.T.T., or equally under the 1957 Act.
Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend, if he cannot make any Amendment now—and I know that he cannot in this place—to consider whether, in another place, he can make an Amendment which will protect our powers against dumping.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I should like to say that some of us upon our side of the Committee implored the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the principle of our Amendment, to take it back and to bring forward a form of wording on Report to meet the objections of most of those who, on both sides of the Committee, spoke in the debate there. For the information of the right hon. Gentleman, let me say that five Members abstained in the Division, four upon his own side, two of whom are absent this afternoon, and a Liberal Member, who is also absent.
The main difficulty which horticulturists in Cornwall find is that they seem to be sacrificed all through the Bill. In Committee, we felt that, at any rate, here was an anomaly which had been brought to light—as I have said, by Members on both sides of the Committee—but all we could get from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was a statement about cereals, although the Bill is about horticultural products as well as cereals. I am bound to say that I formed the conclusion in Committee that all that was in the Government's mind was cereals and that they had given little or no thought to horticultural products.
I was rather alarmed when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke just now about

the infinite difficulties of finding out about prices on the Continent and the costs of insurance and that kind of thing. I was beginning to think that he was going to say that he and his Department did all their calculations with matchsticks, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did. Surely, his Department can do all these things efficiently and quickly.
I conclude by begging the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to do what his right hon. Friend has just asked, to accept the principle of the Bill and let the Bill stand as it is, and seek to amend it satisfactorily, to give effect to the wishes of the House when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. John Farr: I cannot say that I am altogether happy yet about the way in which this Clause will work. Similarly, I cannot state that I think that the addition of the four lines which we are discussing at the moment will make a great deal of difference one way or the other.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. In reply to him, I should like to declare that I believe that this Bill would be far more efficient in dealing with dumped produce than the old 1957 Act because the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, whilst effective, is very cumbersome and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, on occasion it took many months before effective action could be taken. In Committee on the Bill I and other hon. Members elicited from my right hon. Friend that action under the Bill in the case of dumped produce could be pretty well instantaneous.
Why I am not happy about the Clause as it stands at the moment is that I am not at all sure that we shall not in this country still have to pay more for certain imported produce than we need. I am thinking specifically in terms of grain now, because grain was, perhaps, foremost in our minds when we were in Committee, but I am a little disturbed, for instance, that my right hon. Friend said in the Second Reading debate that we are seeking agreements whereby other countries will not supply produce at below minimum prices. What concerns me is whether we can achieve agreement


by which they will supply produce to us at fixed prices.
My right hon. Friend seems to have channelled his activities into making certain that grain, for instance, does not come into this country at below certain prices, and we have heard that it is Likely that certain agreement countries, four of them, will fall into line with us over our request. It is very much in their interests to do so, and I would suggest that we ought perhaps to concentrate our activities on obtaining fixed import prices, let alone minimum import prices.
The second reason why I am not too happy yet about the working of the Clause is the manner in which the levy to be imposed on non-agreement countries will work. We have been told by my hon. Friend that non-agreement countries will send grain to this country and a levy will be charged which will be the difference between its import price and our minimum import price, but is it not a fact that if we in this country have fixed minimum import prices it will have a very hardening effect on world grain prices? I should have thought that it was a real danger, and, consequently, the world prices of grain will be considerably higher, the amount of the levy which can be charged will be reduced, and our Exchequer will face the consequences.
One of the reasons why in Committee I abstained on the Amendment was that I felt that the four lines we were discussing would perhaps have helped us to pinpoint any cases where an excessive charge was made to us by countries abroad. I am not sure, on reflection, that the inclusion of those four lines would still assist us in pinpointing excessive charges, but, nevertheless, I must confess I am not at all happy about how the levy will work.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) pointed out that the Bill deals not only with cereals, but with meat. Indeed, it deals also with the entire gamut of horticultural products. It is rather interesting to note that the flower industry itself is very much concerned with this very Clause. There is on at this very moment, as we are sitting here in the House, a campaign by the flower industry entitled

"Britain in Bloom". As we are getting into the spring the flowers that bloom in the spring have something to do with the case this time.
We have in the flower industry a problem similar to that which was dealt with excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), when he was discussing the meat situation.
During my hon. Friend's excellent speech in Committee he said that it might be that with a more forceful Government in power we could make better arrangements with regard to quantities and prices with the countries which export meat to us than this Government have been able to make. He gave an example, hypothetical then, I admit, but not in the past. Suppose the Argentine, he suggested, stood outside any meat agreement and got into the situation it was in a year or so ago when, as a result of the dock strike in Buenos Aires, it had a great amount of meat in the stores and abattoirs and suddenly unloaded the extra amount when the dock strike was over and shipments could begin again. My hon. Friend said that we knew from that experience that even a relatively small but sudden increase in supplies could upset our market, and then the "killing" could be made by the importers.
What none of us on either side seems to be clear about from the drafting of the Bill is how the Minister will use the powers in the Bill in relation to his revolutionary, excellent and worth-while approach to the horticultural industry. The Minister may say, as he said in passing, that the necessary powers exist and need not have been put in the Bill when it was drafted. But might it not have been much more constructive to spike down these powers in the Bill and see whether other powers were needed to prevent the possibility of exploitation of the British market?
The looseness with which some of the Bill was drafted indicates to me that there was too great an anxiety to rush through some new legislation for our horticultural and agricultural industries. In fairness to them, I must say that the policies outlined in this legislation were not thoroughly digested, or, if they were, they were nit clearly expressed in the drafting.
Does the deletion of the proposed words meet the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie)? He moved the first Amendment in Committee, and at that time we were all concerned with the health of our horticultural and agricultural industries. Does the deletion of these words meet the constructive objections of both sides of those industries? The House has not a clear picture of what method will be evolved. For instance, was the Baltic Exchange consulted about this very new and ticklish problem? The Baltic Exchange has been the traditional market for grain and other produce for many years.
Few of us on either side understand how the Minister will use the powers, how they will work and how he will prevent the exploitation of the market not only in cereals and meat, but in products from the horticultural industries and by imported products that exporters elsewhere wish to send here at times when we have shortages and they have gluts.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I have given myself the homework of reading what was said over the three days, if not four, when this matter was discussed there.
I welcome wholeheartedly the Bill as a whole. I have always felt that as long as the Government have power to regulate home production through the Price Review each year it is essential that we should follow that through and have an import policy which ties in with it. A great many of us argued for a great many years that this was absolutely essential, and here, at last, is an attempt by the Government to do that. Consequently, I welcome the principle of the Bill.
But I wish, and have wished for many years, that the Board of Trade appreciated this point as well as I believe the Minister of Agriculture now does. The Board of Trade has always been extremely reluctant to use whatever powers it has had in this matter. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may say that the reason why it is proposed

to delete these words is that the Board of Trade already has power to do what the words would have demanded. This may be true, and I am not challenging the legal exactitude of the statement, but what I most seriously doubt is whether the spirit at the Board of Trade is such that it will be as willing to use these powers as would the Minister of Agriculture were he the possessor of them.
I think that my hon. Friends who either abstained or supported the Amendment moved by the Opposition in the Standing Committee did a great service to both the Conservative Party and the industry, because they at least indicated an intention on behalf of the Conservative Party which I hope and believe is shared very strongly by the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Hayman: There is no sign of that.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I would, of course, accept my hon. Friend's case for the Amendment in that if the powers already exist, there is no point in writing them into the Bill, and, anyway, if we were to write them in, they would have to be written in correctly. The proviso as it stands can be faulted on wording.
I recall that not long after the passing of the 1957 Act I instituted a debate on horticulture in which I expressed the view that the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act was not adequate to deal with the various problems that we had and that we wanted something besides mere tariffs to deal with the matter. We have had the statement repeatedly made by the Minister on Second Reading and in Committee that it is intended to use the quantitative method of restriction in regard to meat. Therefore, there ought to be nothing in principle obnoxious about considering the limitation of quantity to the extent of prohibition if need be, because that is the logical end of the argument. I feel that, in principle, there is nothing whatever to forbid the Board of Trade from being called upon to exercise its power to prohibit, should the need arise.
In the light of what my hon. Friend has said today and what was said in Committee, we are entitled to ask whether some undertaking was given


to the traditional suppliers of cereal to this country that although these words had been written into the Bill in the Committee stage, it was the Government's intention to move the words out again. We are entitled to know whether there was any compromise of the powers possessed by the Board of Trade in arriving at the cereal agreements.
It is conceivable that the only way we got them was by giving an undertaking that the Board of Trade would never exercise these powers with the countries with which we have agreed. That would be very wrong if that were so and the House were not informed. I hope that the result of these cereal agreements will be to get stability into the market and that we shall not have these violent price fluctuations which undermine the confidence of farmers perhaps more than anything else.
I do not want to wreck these agreements, such as they are, but we are entitled to ask for an assurance that those countries with which we have been in negotiation have not been told that there will be any compromise by the Government on the power already possessed by the Board of Trade for the prohibition of imports.
If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were to say that, it would fortify those of us who do not want to oppose the Government on this Amendment. It would at least show us that the Government are fully aware that there may conceivably be circumstances in which complete prohibition would be required, although we hope that that situation will never arise.
I am convinced that in dealing with this sort of matter the bigger the stick we arm the Government with the less likely it is that it will ever have to be used. It is the possession of the power which matters most in this, and I want to be sure that, in giving the Government this new power over import levies, which I welcome, we are not compromising the extreme power because, if we do, we shall have to impose these levies more often than necessary.
We all hope that it will not be necessary to use the Bill's powers and the Board of Trade's prohibition power, but if there is any sign of undermining the

ultimate power then I am quite certain that the likelihood of our having to use the more moderate powers given in the Bill for import duties will be greater. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us ass trance on this aspect.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) made an interesting speech, but is a little premature in visualising these powers applying to horticulture. Just as I am convinced that, with the increasing purchasing power of the public, the effectiveness of tariff increases becomes less and less as the years go by, so do I believe that we must give a little time for the other part of the Bill to work out before we can sensibly consider utilising the power in Clause 1 to deal with horticultural produce.
I foresee that, when we have regeared agriculture as Part II of the Bill visualises it, it may well be that we shall have to introduce Orders to deal with horticultural produce, but the time is not yet and may be some years away. But it is, I agree, important to realise that the powers being taken here could conceivably affect practically every food commodity we import and to that extent I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the matter.
I hope that it will not be necessary for any of us in this side of the House to oppose the Amendment. It is always ridiculous when the House tries to keep in a Bill words which are really incorrectly drafted or unnecessary. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that, if we can possibly find some means in another place of getting in the appropriate words to link the existing legislation dealing with powers already possessed by the Board of Trade with this Measure, we should try to do so.
If we were able to do so, the position would be much clearer to the industry —and it is, after all, to raise the confidence of the industry that we are primarily putting through this Measure. It would also make the Bill more comprehensive in showing what are all the measures which may be used in the event of someone trying to undermine our market to the disadvantage of home producers.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered this important Measure and I apologise for intervening now, but, by and large, most hon. Members in the House and people outside will welcome the conversion of the Government to some form of control of imports of various agricultural commodities.
As I read the Clause as it now stands, I doubt whether it will meet the requirements of the consumers or the producers. I wonder whether an import levy worked in the way proposed will not have the effect of putting up very considerably the prices of the commodities which we have to buy. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if these powers had been vested in an import-export board which could purchase in bulk commodities offered at low rates in various countries. These could then be held in storage if necessary and, if not required in this country at all, could be sent to areas where there is more need for food.
It would be much better to establish an import-export board with greater powers rather than have the limited powers of this Clause. I am sure that would be very much more beneficial both to farmers and to horticulturists. I do not want to pursue the matter further, but I am not happy about the Amendment carried in Committee, and I am very doubtful as to whether this provision will meet the requirements of the times. It has been badly drafted, I agree.

Mr. Peart: Not badly drafted.

Mr. Baxter: It might not be badly drafted, but, certainly, the drafting is not good either.

Mr. Ross: The drafting is up to the standard of the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Baxter: I suggested in the 1959–60 Session that there should be an import-export board and I agree that the Government have gone a long way towards this idea. But, linked with that, there is need for a greater conception of marketing schemes. If such a board had been set up, with full powers to buy goods from wherever it could at the

cheapest possible rate, the benefits could have been passed on to the consumers and to the producers.
With this Clause, the Government will be serving the purpose in mind, but will, in effect, be making a gift to those nations producing surpluses which, up to now, they were able to dump here, for in future they will, willy-nilly, have to increase their prices to meet our import requirements. While the conception was sensible and good, the Bill is badly drawn up and I would like to see the whole thing get much more consideration than it has received up to now.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I had no part or lot in securing the defeat of the Government in Committee on this Amendment, largely because I was persuaded by some of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I have been very interested to compare the argument put forward today with those put in Committee. When we considered this matter then, we were concerned almost entirely with the question of dealers in a foreign country charging too much to this country under the import price mechanism. All the arguments this afternoon have been devoted to precisely the reverse condition, namely, when produce is being sold in markets here at prices lower than those in the country of origin. It is an interesting condition, but I believe that the Amendment in Committee would have covered both positions.
Far from finding fault with the drafting, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) both on producing an Amendment so right in its application and on bringing into the Bill the prohibition of imports, comparing that very satisfactorily with my own failure to get through Amendments dealing with the prohibition of dumped imports.
I am loath to see these words deleted, although I did not support the Amendment to insert them in Committee, for reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), particularly in connection with horticulture. The Bill deals


with horticulture and ought to contain a provision for making the minimum price mechanism work for horticulture. The Bill as drafted will not permit such a workable scheme.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary argued that it was difficult to discover the price in the country of origin, but this has been rightly contradicted. The Parliamentary Secretary said that under the anti-dumping legislation it was necessary for the Department to establish the cost of production or marketing in the country of origin. I believe that that burden falls not on the Department but on the producers, and it would be much more difficult for them to establish those costs, especially in Iron Curtain countries where there is a strong element of Government trading.
I am not completely satisfied by what my hon. Friend said about the difficulty of working these provisions, but there are no means more satisfactory than those provided in the anti-dumping duties of bringing in preventive or punitive duties when stuff is being sold here well below the cost of production and to the ruination of our home market. That is even more important for horticulture in which there are no guaranteed payments than it is for agriculture and cereal commodities which are the main subject of the Bill.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives): I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). I make no apology for this because in Committee my hon. Friend carried a great deal of the work of the Bill and earned the praise of both sides for what he did.
Line 10 refers to the actual market price in the country of origin. The difficulty is to establish this in time. I make no bones about saying that I am concerned with the future of horticultural produce. The problem is that the harm is done very quickly and it is that which we have to guard against. I cannot help feeling that the Bill's provisions will not be enough and that any action must be based on our home growers' prices. If it is known in the exporting country that the moment a price gets below a certain figure we will impose control, that country will be discouraged from making such exports.
I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there are to be discussions among the Government and others who are concerned, but this is a matter which must be borne in mind and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.

Mr. Percy Browne: I must apologise for being unavoidably detained when the Amendment was moved. I lad not intended to say anything about it, but, after two or three extraordinary speeches and in view of what I understand my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to have said, I feel bound to intervene.
I understand that my hon. Friend said—this was said in the Committee of which I was a member—that the Board of Trade already had power to act. If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Amendment would not achieve what it wishes to achieve, it is equally fair to say that Section 7 of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957—"Ascertainment of a Fair Market Price"—will not work, because the two are exactly similar.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) said that he understood—and I admit that I did—that it was the producers in this country who were being hurt who had to make a case to the Board of Trade before the President of the Board of Trade could act with anti-dumping duties. He had to decide three things and one of them, under Section 1(1) of the 1957 Act—was this:
Provided that, where the Board of Trade are not satisfied that the effect of the dumping or of the giving of the subsidy is such as to cause or threaten material injury to established industry in the United Kingdom…
It appears that over the years we have been hoodwinked. We have been told that the producers had to make their case and we know that the Milk Marketing Board and other organisations who have put cases to the Board of Trade have found that the Board has insisted that this should be one of the criteria.
However, my hon. Friend now says that this anti-dumping legislation is sufficient and that the Amendment is covered by Section 7 of the 1957 Act. Some of us abstained on the Amendment moved in Committee from the Opposition side and we take the view


that this legislation will not do what it is supposed to do. It must be one or the other and if the Amendment will not work, I cannot sec how Section 7 can work. This is what worries me and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain.

Mr. Peart: We have had a useful debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) is to be congratulated on having raised this issue in Committee and the Opposition are to be congratulated on pursuing the matter. Hon. Members have expressed their views clearly and frankly. There is an opinion which cuts across party. If we do not get a satisfactory reply, we shall press the matter and the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) will have an opportunity to abstain or vote against the Government.
I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, but he did not reassure me. I was amazed when he said that our proposal would involve complicated administrative machinery. He explained how we would have to ascertain prices abroad. Surely that information is already available in this country. Surely it is not beyond the power, wit or ability of his officials to obtain that information. If we are to set up machinery to implement the Bill, there will have to be a special Department in the Ministry.
5.0 p.m.
This was admitted by the Minister during the Committee stage. I have always argued that, inevitably, events will force the Government not only to introduce a new type of civil service machinery to administer the provisions in this Bill, but some other machinery which will have to be adopted from outside. But I will not argue that this afternoon. Hon. Members know my views of commodity commissions acting as regulators for the phasing and co-ordination of imports with home production.
Even if we do not accept this it is true that the trade and those people connected with the importation of cereals have suggested some new type of machinery. This is not a good excuse. The information can be obtained. How otherwise can we make the provisions in

this Clause work? To say that we cannot get the world price for cereals, to give one example, is nonsense. The Minister need only use a telephone to obtain the information easily from people involved.
Surely if we have not the means to obtain the information from the countries who supply us with large quantities of various commodities, it is our job to see that there is the necessary staff at our embassies to provide the information. They should be aware of the state of affairs in the different countries with which we have agreements. We are anxious to have agreements on imports with various countries. That is why the Government have been negotiating in relation to cereals.
It was suggested that if we pursued this Amendment it would make difficulties for the negotiators. I am glad to say that that has not happened and negotiations have reached a satisfactory conclusion. The moving of the Amendment did not affect the attitude of those countries who wished to have agreements with this country. The Minister must refute any suggestion that an Amendment of this kind would have prevented a successful international agreement.
I accept that in respect of meat the negotiations will go on for a long time. But here we are discussing the effect not only of this Clause and the powers in relation to cereals, but we are dealing with the proper legal interpretation of the Clause as it affects several commodities. That is why many hon. Members are concerned about the effect of the Clause on horticulture.
The argument of the Minister that we should have great administrative difficulty is not a sound argument. He also said that we or our importers would have to know about costs and freight charges and that this would be a formidable task. That is nonsense and the answer surprised me. In reply to my hon. Friend, the Minister said that there was nothing in this matter. Obviously, there is still a dichotomy of thought. Many hon. Members believe that the powers and specific provision which were inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage could affect dumping and the possibility of traders in other countries holding this country to ransom.
This view was not confined to hon. Members on this side of the House, or to those hon. Members who wish to take speedy action in relation to dumping. It was held by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who put specific questions to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on 16th January the hon. Member said:
As I understand it, the twin objectives of having a minimum import price are, first, to bring stability to our own industry and, secondly, to win the agreement of exporting countries. It seems to me that, in order to get this agreement, we have to agree to take their imports to us at a much higher price than we otherwise might have to pay.
He gave the example of barley which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East has given over and over again. He said:
In other words, we agree to take barley at £20 a ton instead of at £16 a ton."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th January, 1964; c. 49–50.]
It is precisely that sort of arrangement which has caused concern to my hon. Friends. It was only through prodding in the Committee that we extracted from the Government information about how the levy would work. During the Second Reading debate the Minister was vague, but I congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary on his description, in the Committee, of how the levy would work. It is a kind of two-tier or two-levy system which will operate under the Clause and it will require very complicated machinery to administer it. That is why we are anxious to obtain a satisfactory reply.
I was, as always, impressed by what was said by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I know that he has pursued many of these matters in a number of debates on agriculture. I understand his concern. The existing legislation is not sufficient. The anti-dumping legislation, and G.A.T.T., does not deal effectively with unfair trading by countries and individuals and so we are all anxious to see the position rectified. That was the view of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It is certainly the view of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman)

and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). They are anxious to know the effect of this levy on the horticulture industry. We know that the let y will operate in relation first to cereals—we had an announcement from the Government about that —but they are still concerned.
All hon. Members who have spoken today and even the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who supported the Government during the Committee stage discussions, have expressed concern. It could be argued that our wording is not satisfactory. But I do not think that a good argument. I would rather put the point of view that these words may not be completely effective. The Government should look at the matter again. There is a debate to take place in another place. But I think that these words are better left in than taken out, especially in view of the explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. If there is to be any risk I would rather it be on the side of my hon. Friends and I think that would be the view of many hon. Members opposite.
I am not being dogmatic. This is not a party issue, in the sense that these words will be enshrined in the agricultural policy of the Labour Party at the next General Election, or even in Government policy—I am glad to know that the Government now have a policy. After much prodding the Bill has been brought forward and it includes a Clause which gives the Government wide and sweeping powers. We are anxious that the levy system and the minimum import price system shall work effectively. We are anxious to prevent dumping. We are anxious to prevent our country being held to ransom. I should have thought those were two worthy objectives and that we would have support for them from every hon. Member.
Unless the Minister gives a much more effective reply, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide against the Government.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I wish to cover some of the points which have been raised in this debate. I say straight away to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that I do not quibble about the words which his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie)


sought to write into the Bill. I am not trying to say that the words are wrong and would not do what the hon. Member wanted, but that the whole principle is unnecessary and that it is wrong to write it into the Bill. That is why I ask the House to support the Amendment which my right hon. Friend and I put forward.
Of course, my right hon. Friend has said that he intends to use this Clause only for cereals. Several hon. Members have mentioned the difficulties which would occur if we extended it to other commodities. The provisions in the Clause are very wide indeed, but we cannot discuss other commodities in detail because the situation in which it might be necessary to apply the powers of this Clause have not arisen. The powers in this Clause are sufficiently wide to take care of any situation which might arise such as that which was envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard). The powers are there and they are wide enough should they prove necessary in future. That is the reason for drawing the powers widely in the Clause.
The basic misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Enfield, East and us appears to be over the level of the minimum import price. I said time and again in Committee, and my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, that it is not the intention of the Government to fix the minimum import price at a level which will cause a raising of prices, or to adopt a restrictive policy. The level of minimum import price which my right hon. Friend intends to impose is designed to cut out fluctuations at the bottom of the market. The fears which hon. Members have been talking about would not arise; that is not the way this would work. The level of minimum import prices would apply only to cut out fluctuations.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary should get at cross-purposes with me like this. I tried to point out to him in Committee that our total production of barley in this country is about 6 million tons and the total import of cereals is about 10 million tons, of which barley is only 300,000 tons. In the last three years it

has averaged only 500,000 tons. That amount of barley brought in at the price of £16 per ton is sufficient to depress prices here.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is a separate point from the one with which I was dealing. I was saying that the level of minimum import price would not be sufficient to raise prices here. The other point is that even a small amount coming on the market at any time can damage the general price level of the cereals market. That is true, but when we have an agreement the Governments of the countries which are parties to that agreement must do their utmost to see that it is adhered to, and that no cereal comes here at below the minimum import price.
There would be no levy worked out as the difference between the general offering price of grain and the minimum import price, so in the generality of cases what the hon. Member suggested would not happen. But, as I pointed out in Committee, there are powers in Clause 1 to allow for a consignment levy in particular circumstances if that proves necessary. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member is sufficiently covered by the powers in the Clause, since my right hon. Friend can put on a consignment levy should the need arise.
5.15 p.m.
I now turn to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) concerning the collection of information about prices. This, also, was referred to by the hon. Member for Workington. There seems to be a little confusion about this. The collection of information that I was talking about is by no means similar to that which at the moment is necessary under the Customs and Excise (Dumping and Subsidies) Act of 1957, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne).
In the idea put forward by the Opposition the collection of information about market prices of all countries exporting to the United Kingdom would be involved. We would be open to a charge of discrimination by suppliers unless it were done in relation to all countries,


and a whole generality of fluctuations of prices in all countries which export to us. I assure the House that that would be a substantial task. 1 do not say that it would be impossible. Nothing is impossible, particularly under a Conservative Administration, but it would be extremely difficult. I do not want the House to labour under any misapprehension about the difficulty of the task.
It would be very different from the work of administering the anti-dumping legislation. There, the Government have to inquire into a particular case, not to keep under review the prices in all the countries exporting to us. A particular case has to be investigated and the prices are known. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington asked how and why this could work. What I meant was that it would be a formidable task to collect the information required if this were written into the Bill. Under existing legislation this can be done in particular instances. It has been done, and was done very quickly, in 1961, when the question arose of imposing a duty on cereals coming to this country which were considered to be dumped.
I also said that there are powers existing at the moment which are perfectly adequate and can act swiftly to deal with an anti-dumping position of products and produce coming to this country. In this Clause we are bringing in a new system of minimum import prices. It is considered that under this system there should be no need, and it would be completely inappropriate, to write any reference to physical controls which exist under different legislation operated by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the Government have taken these wide powers for import control and control of all agricultural products yet we are still to leave a very important activity to the Board of Trade?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure the hon. Member accepts the fact that the existing anti-dumping legislation is operated under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1957. The point I am making is that the power to impose levies on low-priced imports is designed to prevent the market for home-produced com-

modities being undermined. We have no reason to think that those powers will not be effective for this purpose. Those powers are in the Clause.

Mr. P. Browne: What puzzles me is that my hon. Friend says that it is only in specific cases that we invoke the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, what we call the antidumping legislation. I disagree with him on whether it is fast or slow acting on most occasions. Does the provision which is now written into the Bill, and which the Government seek to remove, ask anything other than that? I do not believe that it does. It does not mean that prices must be obtained in every country. It means that, if it is considered that a particular country is offering at a specially low price, this country would be in a position to say that it would not buy from that country.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: That is not right. The provisions written into the Bill as a result of the Amendment made in Committee would require the generality of prices to be known to the Department all the time. It would therefore require us to be able to say at any moment that domestic prices were at a particular level and it was, therefore, inappropriate for us to accept it. This is the point which is made. I am not quibbling over the actual words of the Amendment which was made. It is the principle behind it.
I submit that the provisions of the Clause as it stood, without the Amendment which was made in Committee, are sufficient to prevent low-priced imports coming in and undermining the home market. I also believe that the existing legislation, what has been called the anti-dumping legislation—the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957—can work speedily, as it has in the past, and is sufficient and adequate, but it would be inappropriate for it to be mentioned and brought into the Clause. We are not dealing with physical measures for the control of cereals coming into this country, but fiscal ones.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is not this contrary to the general terms of the G.A.T.T.? Is there not some danger here that the principles contained in the Clause could not be put into operation because of the terms of the Agreement? The only


way to overcome it would be to have an import board, which could purchase the bulk commodities on the market, rather than allow the prices to be boosted up by the producing countries, which places a heavier burden upon the consumer country—this country.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is not with me on this issue. If he had read the proceedings in the Standing Committee, he would have seen that this was one of the points we discussed. I made the point that this is not against the Articles of the G.A.T.T. Those countries which are non-agreement countries are perfectly entitled to accede to the Agreement at any moment, if they wish. We would be more delighted if any of the countries other than the four which have already agreed after consultations wished to accede to the Agreement.
Under the provisions of the G.A.T.T. this is in order. The hon. Gentleman was not right in his point about the level of prices. With his suggestion of an import-export board, or whatever he wishes to call it, there would be a very rigid pattern and system. Before we knew where we were we would be in a position of rising prices all the way round because of the inability of such boards to deal with this type of trade. The method proposed by the Clause originally is surely the best method of doing it.
I turn, finally, to what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said in his extremely interesting intervention. He asked me about an undertaking given to our overseas suppliers after the Amendment was carried in Committee. He will have noticed that I straight away said in Committee that it would be the intention of the Government, after consideration, to seek to remove this at a later stage.

Presumably our overseas suppliers can get hold of our proceedings, because one knows that they are published. I expect that they could easily have read it there. My hon. Friend can rest assured that there is no compromise of the existing powers.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having dealt with those two points. Would he now clear up one uncertainty in my mind? As I read what he said in Committee, and as I understood what he said today, he has indicated that there is no need for the words which the Amendment seeks to delete because the powers are already in existence. The powers here referred to are powers to prohibit. In what Statute do powers exist to prohibit?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The powers to which I referred are the powers exercised by the Board of Trade under the defence legislation. There are powers in existence which could, if necessary, restrict and prohibit. It is far from my intention that this should be so. I would not want to mislead the House to any extent about what our feelings are in this provision. It is our firm belief that the Clause as it stands, using the fiscal means of the minimum import price, is capable of working as the Government have said it needs to work, of cutting out the bottom troughs of the market, of ensuring a stable market level for our home produced goods.
It is unnecessary to bring in physical means of restriction, restraint or prohibition, as the provision written into the Bill upstairs would do. That is why I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 219.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[5.27 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Callaghan, James


Barnett, Guy
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Carmichael, Neil


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowles, Frank
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Beaney, Alan
Boyden, James
Cliffe, Michael


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Collick, Percy


Bence, Cyril
Bradley, Tom
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Crosland, Anthony


Benson, Sir George
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crossman, R. H. S.




Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, Ernest


Darling, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Deer, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jones,Rt.Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reid, William


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, H.


Driberg, Tom
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Ledger, Ron
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Evans, Albert
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Finch, Harold
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fitch, Alan
Lubbock, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Foley, Maurice
McBride, N.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, Julian


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gourlay, Harry
McLeavy, Frank
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grey, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalleu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Manuel, Archie
Stonehouse, John


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Stones, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marsh, Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Harman, William
Mason, Roy
Swingler, Stephen


Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Healey, Denis
Milne, Edward
Thorpe, Jeremy


Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John
Warbey, William


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Holt, Arthur
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn, Philip (Derby,S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Oram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howie, W. (Luton)
Owen, Will
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hoy, James H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Hunter, A. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.





NOES



Agnew, Sir Peter
Buck, Antony
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bullard, Denys
Drayson, G. B.


Allason, James
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
du Cann, Edward


Anderson, D. C.
Burden, F. A.
Duncan, Sir James


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Atkins, Humphrey
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Emery, Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Chataway, Christopher
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R,
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cleaver, Leonard
Fair, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cole, Norman
Finlay, Graeme


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Foster, Sir John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Freeth, Denzil


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Cordle, John
Gammans, Lady


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bourne-Arton, A.
Coulson, Michael
Gower, Raymond


Braine, Bernard
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grosvenor, Lord Robert


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cunningham, Knox
Gurden, Harold


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dance, James
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bryan, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)







Harris, Reader (Heeton)
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Shaw, M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
MacLeod, Sir J. (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
McMaster, Stanley R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin
Speir, Rupert


Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stainton, Keith


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hendry, Forbes
Marten, Neil
Stodart, J. A.


Hiley, Joseph
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hocking, Philip N.
Mawby, Ray
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hollngworth, John
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hopkins, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Teeling, Sir William


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, William
Temple, John M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morrison, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hughes-Young, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Jackson, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Jennings, J. C.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Vane, W. M. F.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitman, Sir James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wall, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lagden, Godfrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ramsden, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Bawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Wise, A. R.


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Worsley, Marcus


Loveys, Walter H.
Ridsdale, Julian



Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Eraser.

Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers aforesaid".

In line 24, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers aforesaid".

In line 28, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers aforesaid or any of them".

In line 29, after first "to", insert "them or".

In line 31, leave out "by the Minister".

In line 34, at end insert:

(5) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting alone shall have the like powers as the Ministers aforesaid have under subsections (2) and (3) above to make orders dealing only with the rates of levies, allowances and reliefs provided for by previous orders.

In line 37, leave out "his" and insert "their".

In line 38, leave out "Minister" and insert "Minister aforesaid".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Mr. Farr: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "elsewhere than in the United Kingdom" and to insert:
in the Commonwealth and elsewhere overseas".
The Amendment has been tabled with the intention of deliberately noticing in the Bill the fact that farmers in the Commonwealth still enjoy that special recognition which they have enjoyed in the past. Quite naturally, home producers are our prime concern but, equally naturally, Commonwealth producers are our next concern. I feel that it would be the wish of the House that if, as the Bill says, we are having regard to the interests of agricultural and horticultural producers elsewhere than in the United Kingdom then that regard in the first


place should be shown towards our Commonwealth suppliers.
In moving the Amendment I have particularly in mind, for example, New Zealand which today sends to us 90 per cent. of her total export of dairy produce and over half of her total export of lamb. A large proportion of the £350 million worth of goods which came from Canada in 1962 were agricultural produce, and we are still Australia's largest customer taking her meat and her grain. Additionally, nearly all our imports of sugar come from Commonwealth countries. The House may have some idea of the extent of our trade when I say that in 1962 we imported from the Commonwealth over £100 million worth of cereals alone. Dairy produce amounted to £96 million worth and meat to £92 million worth.
I am asking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to accept what is only a small alteration in the wording of the Clause. I might possibly have had good ground for suggesting that a preferential rate of levy be applied to Commonwealth producers. As I have not tabled anything of that nature, I trust that my hon. Friend will be gracious enough to realise that this small alteration can also be construed as one of great significance.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for moving the Amendment in the reasonable terms he did. If it has done nothing else, his speech has drawn attention to the importance of our Commonwealth in the supply of food to this country. I am sure that his words will not go unnoticed. But by mentioning the Commonwealth the Amendment alters the wording rather than the scope of the provision in the Bill which permits my right hon. Friends, in exercising their powers under the Clause, to take account of the interests of overseas producers.
The provision in subsection (5) was inserted in recognition of our wide trading interests. Although the purpose for which the minimum import prices may be exercised is in the interest of maintaining market stability in the United Kingdom, we clearly cannot overlook or ignore the fact that producers in other countries have a considerable stake in

our market including, as my hon. Friend pointed out, producers in the Commonwealth.
5.45 p.m.
We have made it clear all along that we are ready to take a full and constructive part in discussions on the wider problems of achieving a greater measure of stability in the world cereals market generally. This indeed is the spirit in which we are participating in the G.A.T.T. discussions on cereals. The latter part of subsection (5) indicates that we have these wider considerations in mind.
The effect of the Amendment is to single out the Commonwealth for special mention, a praiseworthy object indeed. As for the drafting of the Amendment, while I do not quibble very much about it, I must point out that it overlooks the fact that the United Kingdom is a part of the Commonwealth, and also that in the context of this subsection it is the interests of our trading partners generally and not only those of other Commonwealth countries the which we are concerned. A special reference to the Commonwealth is therefore not appropriate or necessary in this context.
We are talking about the much wider negotiation; which we may be undertaking and of the discussions in Geneva held under the provisions of the G.A.T.T. This is the reason why in subsection (5) there is a specific mention of the interests of overseas producers. The House will realise that, praiseworthy though the Amendment is, it is not necessary; and indeed it would not seem appropriate to put it in the Clause in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. I must therefore reluctantly ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Turton: I rise to say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be so ungracious in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Is there any great difficulty about accepting the Amendment? Subsection (5) says that Orders may make different provisions according to the origin of the imports. Presumably that looks at the present Commonwealth provision as a Commonwealth preference. If I am wrong, I hope that I shall be contradicted, but if I am right why not provide for the Commonwealth in this Clause, as it has been


provided for in previous trading legislation, and make it quite clear that we have special responsibilities to the Commonwealth?
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary makes the very pedantic comment about the drafting that it would not mean what it is intended to mean because we in this country are part of the Commonwealth, but surely my hon. Friend's pedantry has rather outrun his grammar because the Amendment says "in the Commonwealth and elsewhere overseas". If we are the Commonwealth at home then the Commonwealth could not be "elsewhere overseas." Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to look at the matter a little more kindly.
No great change is made, but as a matter of good manners and politeness to our partners in the Commonwealth I ask him to consider this matter. If he wishes, he can think it over and take it to his right hon. Friend, who is on a bed of sickness, and he can consider with him whether in another place he could put the matter right between this country and the Commonwealth, bearing in mind that there will be a certain strain in relationships between us and many Commonwealth countries during the process of freeing our agricultural policy. It would not be a bad thing, therefore, if we did this in a way which would be well-mannered and polite towards our partners in the Commonwealth.

Mr. George Darling: I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) emotionally and spiritually and I see no reason why the words relating to the Commonwealth should not be inserted in the Bill. They make no difference to the Bill because, as the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly stated, the Bill as it stands obviously includes an instruction to the Minister to take note of our Commonwealth interests because they are part of our overseas interest. I see no reason, therefore, why it should not be made clear that we are thinking of the Commonwealth.
We on this side of the House have agreed that in our food policies we must take account of Commonwealth interests. It was implicit from 1947 onwards, and it was one of the reasons

for our doubts about going into the Common Market. We cannot, however, neglect other overseas interests, and it is at this point that I begin to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.
We must make sure that we fit into world agreements and particularly, if we can get them, world commodity agreements which are designed to help maintain reasonable prices for foodstuffs throughout the world. This is essential to the well-being of agricultural countries generally and also to our own wellbeing as an exporting nation, because we want prosperous customers. All these matters have been considered in discussions on Second Reading and in Committee, but, nevertheless, I cannot see any reason why special reference to the Commonwealth should be omitted from the Bill.

Mr. Harold Davies: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). Why is there all this tenderness and worry on the part of the Government about mentioning the Commonwealth? Surely this is the place where it would be apt to mention it. The logic of the argument made by hon. Members opposite was irrefutable. We are not asking the Minister to do much. I do not want to upset this debate by harking back to points of view and debates that we had last year, but I am still a little suspicious that there is behind this the thought that the Common Market is a panacea for all our economic ills and problems. So we play down the Commonwealth.
I want us to play it up again. After all, we are not the ones who waved the Union Jack at political meetings, at General Elections. [Interruption.] That is a fair comment. I want the Minister now to give way. The Amendment does not alter the Bill all that much, but it represents some of the agreements made and preferences granted during the years. There have been occasions when we have been grateful for the help of the Commonwealth, in times of flood, famine and during the war. Since we are at least a British Government, let us mention sections of the British Commonwealth in the Bill.
There is no need to make a long speech. The points that have been made hit the nail right on the head. During


the Committee stage we probed this shadow that was over Government speakers about the Common Market. I want to see the Commonwealth mentioned in the Bill, as referred to in the Amendment. There is no reason why it should not be mentioned. If my two hon. Friends were not too busy making their own private speeches on the Front Bench I would ask for their attention. If we cannot get the Government to agree to this Amendment, I would shunt them into the Lobby and let the country know how they feel about this Commonwealth that they talk so much about.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I must point out to my hon. Friend that unfortunately I had to be out of the Chamber for a few minutes while, I understand, he was saying that he did not think that this Amendment was necessary. I would support my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, for this reason. There are not many people in my part of the world who are gravely suspicious about the threat of our going into the Common Market. I can think of no reason why the Commonwealth, of which we are justly so proud, should not be included in these words. I think that it would at least do something to allay the suspicions which are voiced to me so frequently in my part of the country about this hidden wish of Her Majesty's Government to let things go on a little bit until an advance can be made towards our going into the Common Market. For these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider what he said.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) need not have worried about my conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) who was merely telling me how eloquently my hon. Friend the Member for Leek was speaking on this matter.
I was delighted when I came into the Chamber and heard the debate, because during Second Reading I probed the Minister on his intention whether this import levy system was to be a preparation for our entry into the European Economic Community, because the Community has precisely this sort of levy system.
In Committee I gave several quotations, but I do not want to go into them

now, because I want to press a Division on this Amendment, in view of what the Minister has said. I remember quoting from a Western European Union document, which was issued only in December, 1963, the speech of M. Jean Rey to the Assembly of the Western European Union. In his speech M. Rey, a member of the High Commission of the European Economic Community, said this, which is relevant to the Amendment:
In December, 1962, they had been concerned to tell Mr. Soames
That is our Minister, I assume—
that the United Kingdom deficiency payment scheme was a bad one. He had defended that system of payments, but a year later, Mr. Butler"—
I assume that he means our Mr. Butler—
had been able to tell them at The Hague that the United Kingdom was gradually introducing the Community system of minimum payments.
All hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have agricultural interests, and especially those with horticultural interests, are anxious that there should be no dubiety about this, that we should have clarity; and we on this side are delighted to support the Amendment which would mention the Commonwealth. I have always been a Commonwealth man. I am not negative in my attitude towards Europe, but I think that if we can in our legislation emphasise more and more our relationship with the Commonwealth it will be to the good of this country. I am delighted to support the hon. Member. We shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Bullard: I cannot see why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could not accept this Amendment which seems to be a very mild one. I have been provoked into saying a word or two by what has been said on this question of the Common Market. I think that this is a complete red herring. There is very little in common between these arrangements and the Common Market arrangements. This system of minimum import prices is in order to fortify the system of deficiency payments which we at present have. They have no such thing in the Common Market.
While I would have been much happier if my hon. Friend had accepted this Amendment, I must help him to rebuff the attacks which have been made by hon. Members opposite, suggesting that there is some kind of attempt in this Bill to bring us under any Common Market system. If I thought that were the case, I would vote against the whole Bill.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must realise that his right hon. Friend the Ministere has a great enthusiasm for the managed market. Over and over again, in specific Regulations, cereals, for example, he advised farmers to accept this sort of policy, and for these reasons we are still a little suspicious.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There is one point which I must deal with as quickly as I can. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) said there seemed to be a shadow hovering over him concerning the Common Market. Various of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have mentioned it. There is, of course, no such intention, and this had nothing to do with the Commonwealth—I mean the Common Market.

Mr. Harold Davies: An absolutely Freudian slip.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew what that meant, I would see him afterwards outside. There is absolutely no intention whatever of this having any effect to do with that at all. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made this point time and time again. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) knows full well that he is flogging a dead horse ad nauseam, and I had hoped that the House was tired of that one. This has nothing whatever to do with the Common Market.
To return to the Amendment, as I said before, it is unnecessary because the words already in the Bill cover the issues about which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was speaking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) pointed out that, even under the Amendment, we should still be in the same position as we were before we started. I entirely agree. My point was

that it was quite unnecessary to put these words in. We are here referring to much wider and more general range of arrangements which may be concluded in the future. We are thinking in wider and more general terms than the narrower point about the Commonwealth, important though that is, as my hon. Friends have stressed. However, I am quite prepared to accept the reference to the Commonwealth, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

Hon. Members: Hear hear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(GRANTS FOR IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF SMALL PRODUCTION BUSINESSES.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, at the end to insert:
Provided that notwithstanding the inability of an applicant to comply with one or more conditions of the scheme the Minister if satisfied that in all the circumstances it is reasonable so to do may approve the payment of a grant to that applicant, and.
We had quite a long discussion on this subject in Committee and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has considered the point very carefully. I do not intend to speak for more than a few minutes about it now, but I remind the House that, in Committee, every hon. Member on both sides who spoke supported me in my contention. The Clause as it stands omits from the scheme many very efficient horticultural smallholders. I take the example of two smallholders working side by side. One of them who works just under 4 acres is a really tiptop man doing a first-class job thoroughly efficiently. Next door to him is a man with 4½ or 5 acres who is doing not nearly so good a job and who is nowhere near so efficient. Because the second man's holding is a little bigger, he is included in the present provisions.
In Committee, we argued that the scope should be widened to include many more smallholders who were just below the present limit. Hon. Members on both sides thought that there was room in the Bill to include them. After a long discussion, the Parliamentary Secretary promised that he would discuss the matter with his right hon. Friends and that they would consult


representatives of the National Farmers' Union to see whether our suggestions could be embodied in the Bill. Because of the hon. Gentleman's favourable reply on that occasion, we did not press the matter to a Division, although I am convinced that, had we done so, the Government would have had their second defeat on the Bill, since hon. Members on both sides were unanimous in supporting us.
Have the discussions which the Parliamentary Secretary promised yet taken place? If so, what has been the result, and is the hon. Gentleman now able to tell us that the Minister can be as kind to us today as we were to him when we discussed the matter in Committee? By accepting the Amendment, he would be doing a good service not only to very many really efficient first-class horticultural smallholders but to the industry itself. This is the type of man who should be encouraged, and the best way to encourage him is to include him in the scheme. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now tell us that he agrees with the proposals we have made.

Mr. Bullard: In Committee, some of my hon. Friends and I put an Amendment down in terms rather similar to those of the Amendment now before us. I was impressed by the argument advanced on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that it was not possible to have a variable minimum for the size of acreage which might qualify for grant under the small horticultural producers scheme. He said that there must be some directive given to his officers as to how small a holding might become. We had thought that the agricultural executive committees might have a discretion to decide whether grant could be offered in respect of holdings below the minimum of four adjusted acres under the old Horticulture Act.
On reflection, I came to the conclusion that my hon. Friend was wise to insist on a minimum being laid down. However, I hope that he will respond to the invitation extended to him by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) and say whether a new minimum will be inserted in the scheme prepared under the Bill. I am not sure that he can forecast what will be in the scheme,

but I should like it to take the form that an acreage smaller than four adjusted acres could be taken as the minimum. If this were done, it would, I think, satisfy both my hon. Friends and I who were interested in this matter and it would, I hope, satisfy the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West so that he would be prepared to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I support the Amendment. The whole subject was very adequately discussed in Standing Committee and it has been adequately put today by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton). I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I should like there to be a measure of flexibility in the application of the scheme in respect of grants to small horticulturists. The Amendment is needed because there is plenty of evidence that a horticulturist managing less than four adjusted acres is capable of running efficiently a valuable part of the industry.

Sir Peter Agnew: I should like to be associated with this Amendment, not because I think that its specific terms can be incorporated in the Bill but rather because I think that the Minister may feel able to give the House the assurance—as I think he had hopes in Committee of being able to do—that a generous definition of a small horticultural business will be used. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) has done a service in putting down this Amendment, as I think hon. Members on both sides are hopeful that something will result from it.

Mr. Hayman: I support this Amendment all the more readily because a similar one was withdrawn in Committee on the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that he would look at the matter again. I am sure that he has looked at it again, but he has done nothing more, with the result that we now have this Amendment before us. It is quite clear that never was flexibility so justified as in the definition of a horticultural business. It is a question of complete. efficiency of production within a very narrow limit of space. I should have thought that the Minister would have welcomed the opportunity to


be able, when efficiency justified it, to assist the producer. I hope that my hon. Friends will take this Amendment to a Division if the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to give the definite assurance we seek.

Mr. Harold Davies: I sincerely hope that in this case, too, the Minister will have a change of heart. He is a kindly man—though other powers behind him may not be so kindly—and I am sure that in his heart he knows that the purpose of this Amendment is right and that, because of its pattern, we need some flexibility in the horticultural industry. At one time there were great posters in the agricultural areas from one end of Britain to the other speaking of the breath of fresh air the hon. Gentleman's Government would bring—this is his opportunity.
Let him see how tempting it is—we are on the eve of a General Election. Let him think of his majority. Let him look to the horticultural areas—Evesham, and even the hills of Leek and the Manifold Valley. A change of heart on his part will reverberate to his advantage, though it will not give the Government one more vote in my constituency. I hope that he will accept the Amendment in the interests of good horticulture, and the need to give an opportunity to all men, whatever their politics or creed.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) for moving his Amendment in such reasonable terms. The House will realise that we have been over this ground in exhaustive detail in Committee; and that I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, as I had with the similar Amendment discussed in Standing Committee. Nevertheless, I cannot accept it. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that there would be no conditions of eligibility at all for the small business grant scheme even though Parliament had laid down such conditions, because my right hon. Friend would be free to ignore them. That would be the result of accepting the Amendment, and we could not tolerate such a position. Administration of the scheme would be completely at the Minister's discretion

and, therefore, quite arbitrary and inconsistent with the pattern of legislation of this kind. We are therefore forced to hold to the conclusion that some minimum conditions for eligibility must be laid down in the Scheme itself.
I will not repeat the argument about the minimum condition of four adjusted acres, but the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has quoted me as having promised the Standing Committee to bring in an Amendment at this stage—

Mr. Hayman: No. If I said that, I apologise. I thought that I said that the hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that he would look at the matter again.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I did give an assurance, and I am sure the hon. Member will remember that I said:
I should like to give this undertaking to the Committee. My right hon. Friend and I will once again start consultations with the National Farmers' Union to see whether there is any conceivable way whereby the type of person I have described, the specialist and so on, can be brought into whatever scheme my right hon. Friend may lay before the House at a later stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1964; c. 215.]
The consultations are now proceeding, but I would be deluding the House if I were to pretend that the difficulties had become any less "hideous", as I described them in Committee, or that the people whom we are consulting have not realised the difficulties facing us in trying to get round the problem.
As yet, no solution has come to light, but my right hon. Friend will, when the time comes to lay down the conditions in the Scheme, take account of anything coming out of the consultations that are taking place between my Department and the N.F.U. The conditions have to be laid down in an Order.
I must be honest and say quite frankly that the difficulties of finding a way round this problem are almost overwhelming. It is better that I should say that clear and loud, because I know that the people not only of Norfolk but elsewhere appreciate honesty. I ask the hon. Member to consider whether he cannot withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The Government are so vulnerable to defeat on these Amendments that it is only right that, for a change, someone


on this side should support them, and give them a little encouragement. If this Amendment were carried it would do a far greater injustice than would clearly laying down criteria for eligibility for grants. It is tenable to argue that the dividing line is wrong and harsh, but it is quite different to argue that we shall have a dividing line but that, in case we do not like it, we shall give the Minister carte blanche to waive it.
That would be to give the Minister an amazing discretion, and would drive a coach-and-four through the whole purpose of this legislation. It would be rather like the alleged slogan printed on Conservative posters, "These are our principles, but, if you don't like them, we have others." There are those who say that the acreage limit in the small farm scheme is rigid, and that the acreage division should be used. That is a tenable argument. However, if there were a rigid acreage limit but the Minister had discretion, as is suggested in the Amendment, that could create a far greater injustice than the one which the Amendment seeks to repair.
What the farming community wants to be able to say is that it has been rightly assessed as falling inside or outside the scheme and that the scheme itself is fair, but we cannot leave a Minister with discretion to get round the Act and do precisely what he wants to circumvent it. That would be wholly wrong.

Mr. Peart: I always find it extremely interesting when members of the Liberal Party advise the party opposite and then form a united front, because that is what they are doing today. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who has a great interest in agriculture, should take such a rigid view. We have argued about this matter over and over again, and not just on this Bill. If the hon. Member had carefully followed the debates on this issue, he would have seen that they go back to the 1960 Act. I remember being involved in discussing precisely the same sort of Amendment as this, and we had many arguments. Many hon. Members felt that this was a case for flexibility.
I accept that sometimes we must lay down minimum standards in legislation so that an individual—in this case, the

producer—may qualify for grant in aid. But we are asking the Minister to be flexible. The scheme made under the 1960 Act has worked over a period of time. We are certain that many good producers with viable units could be helped if only the Minister had certain discretionary powers. Why cannot we trust the Minister? Why should we adopt arbitrary legislation? There is nothing sacrosanct about arbitrary legislation.
I ask the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), who made a powerful plea for sympathy towards our proposal, and other hon. Members, not to be wooed by the plea of the hon. Member for Devon, North, who wishes the Minister to adopt arbitrary legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) put this Amendment forward in Committee. It gives the Minister certain discretionary powers. If he feels that a horticultural unit falls below the minimum laid down in the Farm Improvement Scheme—that is, a minimum of four adjusted acres—he can, in certain circumstances, make a grant. How will a grant be made even if we have minimum standards? It will be made only on the advice given to the Minister through his National Agricultural Advisory Service.
I suggest that the Minister should have a little discretion and that if members of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, who are skilled men in horticulture, survey a unit and say, "This viable unit below four adjusted acres can be helped by a grant in aid", then aid should be given.

Mr. Thorpe: I am following the hon. Member's argument very closely. Is he aware that this sort of machinery has worked, and is working, in a comparable case, namely, eligibility for hill cow payments? It can happen that a farm on one side of the road is eligible but a farm on the other side is not. The matter is entirely within the Minister's discretion. It is because it is within his discretion and is decided upon criteria unknown to the farming community that the farming community is so angry that this power should be exercised by the Minister.

Mr. Peart: In this case, the farming community is anxious that the principle


of the Amendment should be accepted. If the hon. Member wishes to quote in aid farming opinion, let me quote from an N.F.U. document. Every hon. Member has received this document. It states:
We considered then, as we do now, after four years experience of the Horticulture Act, that where the business of a small but able grower is conducted on a sufficiently intensive scale to enable him to gain a full-time livelihood from it, then the qualifying limitations in any scheme of acreage (or acreage equivalent where grass is concerned) should not prevent the Minister, through the county agricultural executive committee, exercising discretionary powers where he considers the circumstances justified.
[Interruption.] We all have this document and the hon. Member knows it very well. He tabled an Amendment because he received this document.
The hon. Member for Devon, North, who did not have the benefit of taking part in our discussions in Standing Committee, must recognise that expert opinion takes the view that the Minister should have discretionary powers. No hardship would be involved. Some small growers could be helped. It would be criminal if we prevented small growers with viable units from receiving aid.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides feel strongly about this matter and that they will support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West. I trust that we shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Hilton: We have had a very unsatisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. He gave an assurance in Committee that the Minister

and himself would have discussions with the N.F.U. to see whether the Amendment could be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope that the hon. Member heard what I said. I said that we are in process of having discussions with the N.F.U. No solution has yet emerged from these discussions. I have been trying to explain the difficulties. The hon. Member seems to be in his usual state of mind in not being able to understand the simplest points which I put forward.

Mr. Peart: I hope—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peart: May I interrupt, Mr. Speaker? We are still in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee The hon. Member is making an intervention on an intervention, and all experience shows that that is disastrous.

Mr. Hilton: The Parliamentary Secretary said that these discussions are taking place. He reminded us today that he is sympathetic to our proposal. However, his reply was so disappointing that I must ask the House to divide against the Government. We are united on this. The only support which the Minister had came from the one Liberal present, the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 186.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.

Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ainsley, William
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Evans, Albert


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chapman, Donald
Fernyhough, E.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Cliffe, Michael
Finch, Harold


Barnett, Guy
Collick, Percy
Fitch, Alan


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Crosland, Anthony
Foley, Maurice


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dalyell, Tam
Forman, J. C.


Bence, Cyril
Darling, George
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Benson, Sir George
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Blackburn, F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gourlay, Harry


Blyton, William
Deer, George
Grey, Charles


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon, A. G.
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bowden, Rt. Hn, H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Diamond, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bowles, Frank
Dodds, Norman
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Boyden, James
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hart, Mrs. Judith




Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mapp, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mason, Roy
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.
Ross, William


Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward
Skeffington, Arthur


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Monslow, Walter
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Howie, W. (Luton)
Moody, A. S.
Small, William


Hoy, James H.
Morris, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Arthur
Snow, Julian


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold
Sorensen, R. W.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Steele, Thomas


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jeger, George
Oram, A. E.
Stonehouse, John


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oswald, Thomas
Stones, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will
Swingler, Stephen


Jones,Rt.Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, B. T.
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wainwright, Edwin


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Warbey, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Frederick
Weitzman, David


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
whitlock, William


Ledger, Ron
Popplewell, Ernest
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


McBride, N.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McCann, John
Probert, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


MacColl, James
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McInnes, James
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Woof, Robert


McLeavy, Frank
Reid, William



Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.





NOES



Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
James, David


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jennings, J. C.


Allason, James
Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Anderson, D. C.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Farr, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Finlay, Graeme
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Timothy


Barlow, Sir John
Freeth, Denzil
Lagden, Godfrey


Barter, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Gammans, Lady
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bevins, Rt, Hon. Reginald
Goodhew, Victor
Longbottom, Charles


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lubbock, Eric


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
McLaren, Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maddan, Martin


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marten, Neil


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bullard, Denys
Hay, John
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, w.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Morgan, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Morrison, John


Cole, Norman
Hollingworth, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cooke, Robert
Holt, Arthur
Neave, Airey


Cooper, A. E.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Cordle, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Critchley, Julian
Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cunningham, Knox
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dance, James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Partridge, E.


Drayson, G. B.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)







peel, John
Speir, Rupert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith
Turner, Colin


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Pitt, Dame Edith
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Stodart, J. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Storey, Sir Samuel
Vickers, Miss Joan


proudfoot, Wilfred
Studholme, Sir Henry
wade, Donald


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Ramsden, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Temple, John M.
Wise, A. R.


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Shaw, M.
Thorpe, Jeremy



Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswiok)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Pym.

Clause 4.—(GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR INITIAL OPERATION OF CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING BUSINESSES.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 10, at beginning insert:
Subject to section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, to leave out from "period" to "as" in line 25 and to insert:
ending not later than two years after the establishment of the business".

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this the next Amendment, which is not selected, in line 24, after "with", insert:
the submission to the Minister of a programme within a reasonable time following".

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In Standing Committee, when an Amendment was put down by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)—I notice that he and his hon. Friends have tabled the same Amendment again, although it has not been selected—he and his hon. Friends made the point that the Clause imposed upon newly formed co-operatives which wanted to submit a progamme for the initial operation of their business an obligation to submit the programme immediately the co-operative was formed.
Obviously, this could give rise to difficulties in some cases. A new co-operative might need a breathing space to sort out its ideas and to work out the cost of putting them into operation. That is why I gave an assurance that we would consider how subsection (2) could be amended to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
The purpose of my Amendment is to fulfil that undertaking and to relieve a newly formed co-operative which wants to have a grant-aided programme of initial operation from the need to submit a programme for grant immediately it has been established.
Since the point is so clearly linked with another proposal made in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Hillsborough to alter the terminal date of period of initial operation to which the programme may apply, perhaps I may explain why we left the period at two years from the date of establishment of the co-operative. To go beyond this period and to have a terminal date which varied according to when the co-operative happened to submit its programme would depart from the basic principle underlying the Clause of helping a new co-operative to become established.
I think that two years from the date of establishment is a very reasonable maximum period to allow for programmes to be drawn up for the starting of a new business, but let me add that there will, of course, be nothing to prevent a co-operative, after it has established itself and got under way with the help of the initial grant we are talking about under this Amendment, from submitting a further programme for expansion whilst its initial one is being completed. The difficulties the hon. Gentleman refered to are part of the initial operation. The two-year period will not deprive a co-operative of further aid if it wishes to expand.
I therefore commend the Amendment to the House because I think that it meets the point which the hon. Gentleman raised in Committee and does fulfil the assurance which I gave.

Mr. Darling: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for dealing with this not very difficult matter in this way. As he will appreciate, we had some slight difficulty in trying to find a form of words to cover the point we had in mind. Quite obviously, as the Clause stood, a new business could be handicapped by the time factor in starting off and developing. When I first saw the Amendment I thought that it would also be a bit too limiting, but when the hon. Gentleman says that after a business has been established a programme of expansion and development can be submitted by a newly established co-operative and provided that is made absolutely clear, I think our point is fully covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(CONSTRUCTION OF SECTIONS 2 TO 6.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 10, after "above", insert:
and section (Supply of produce to co-operative marketing businesses) of this Act".—[Mr.
Scott-Hopkins.]

Clause 8.—(GRANTS TOWARDS FULFILLING GUARANTEES OF BANK LOANS.)

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, to leave out from "make" to the end of line 20 and to insert:
grants to the Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited, the Agricultural Finance Federation Limited, and any other institution properly constituted to provide credit facilities for agricultural and horticultural businesses, in respect of expenditure incurred by them in fulfilling guarantees given by them as securities for loans made in the course of banking transactions to persons requiring loans for the purpose of horticultural businesses carried on by them".

Mr. Speaker: I think we can take with this Amendment the next one, also in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in page 8, line 21, to leave out "grant" and insert "grants".

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Darling: We now come to a rather difficult part of the Bill and I regret to say that I shall have to detain the House for a little longer than is customary on Report. I shall try to be as brief as I can, although this is a very important matter.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if I may put it colloquially, is

"carrying the can" today because of the Minister's unfortunate illness—"carrying the can" on a very difficult question. I therefore intend to be far more gentle than would have been the case if his right hon. Friend had been here, for I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is the innocent victim of what I will politely call on this occasion a confusion of circumstances.
In Committee, we put forward this Amendment and withdrew it, as we explained at the time, so that we could more fully consider the reply which had been given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary; and that was generally agreed. We have to pursue the matter again, because there were contradictory statements, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, in the Committee proceedings. We have been left in a state of confusion which I think the House would agree should be cleared up.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister gave us an assurance that the provision of Treasury guarantees under this Clause 8 would not be confined or restricted to one credit institution but would be available to other appropriate institutions, and he said he was using the Agricultural Credit Corporation only as an example of the type of institution which would qualify for Treasury backing.
We had some doubts about this apparently straightforward assurance, and the Minister therefore asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) to put a question during the Second Reading debate, and we put Amendments down in Committee, to try to clear the matter up. In Committee, however, the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed our suspicions, and categorically said, despite the Minister's assurance, that Treasury backing would be confined and restricted to one selected credit institution. Then he gave a sop of saying that this monopoly arrangement would apply only for five years, but he, gave no guarantee that it would not be continued after the five years.
The task of the House on this matter today is to examine the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to us, without any warning, for this extraordinary arrangement. I would suggest that we also have the duty to examine


as best we can the body which has been selected for the Minister's favours. To get the whole business in perspective, I think that I shall have to take up more time than I really would like to do.
To clear this matter up and to get it into perspective we should be clear about what we mean by credit backing to fruit and vegetable growers and their co-operatives. I should explain that they require loans and that those loans must be backed by a credit institution of one kind or another. Briefly, the grower needs financial help from time to time. Unless he is well-established with glasshouses and can gather different crops all the year round, his income is seasonal, depending on the crops he can harvest. He also has to have help if he wants to extend or modernise his holding or to obtain new machinery and equipment. In the nature of his occupation he has to borrow money, usually, for these various purposes, but his income, although it ought to improve as a result of the infusion of capital, is always a chancy business, since he is the victim of climatic conditions and the victim of market fluctuations.
In fact, he is in the unique position that his loan, expressed in material terms, in machinery, equipment, buildings, seeds and fertilisers, is the only security he can offer to an institution, and it loses in value as time goes on or it disappears into the soil. He cannot guarantee that his crops will produce year by year a sufficient income which will allow him to pay off the loan. He has to live on hope, and unfortunately, the banks do not put a heavy premium on hopes; they ask for something more substantial.
This is where credit institutions come in; they base their activities on the very good co-operative principle that if one man loses another will gain and so they can be worked collectively together and they can balance their gains and losses. There is nothing new in this. Other countries have had agricultural credit institutions and banks for this service for a century or more, and if we had adopted this system in years gone by we would not now be discussing this Clause or this Amendment because there would be no need for it.
Indeed, there have been for some years now informal arrangements between several well-established growers' co-operatives and the C.W.S. Bank to finance the purchase of seeds, fertilisers, and so on, on what may be called mortgage terms or, if hon. Members like, hire purchase. This informal arrangement was put into a formal, organised form five years ago when the partners—this group of quite well-established and flourishing co-operatives and the C.W.S. Bank—set up the Agricultural Finance Federation. The Federation is now a firmly established, perfectly sound and solvent and expanding institution. According to the last published balance sheet, for March, 1963, its financial operations amounted in that year to about £200,000, of which about £180,000 was from mortgage credit, or, if one prefers it, hire purchase.
Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, the Federation does not aim at making a profit. If it has a good year, it uses its profit to reduce its loan charges in the following year, a very good arrangement. I will not go into further details about it. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary now has the kind of information that he needs about it. It is this highly successful institution which the Minister wishes to exclude from the Treasury guarantees.
The Federation confines its services more or less to agricultural and horticultural co-operatives, but this scope is important because under the Bill we are bringing into the field of credit operation a new consideration. Under the 1960 Act we said, in effect, to the growers "We want to help you modernise and re-equip your holdings, to expand and develop. If you produce acceptable development schemes, the State will give you one-third of the cost. You must raise the other two-thirds yourself." That means that the growers must in most cases get loans to cover their two-thirds' contribution.
These admirable arrangements, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, have not worked out quite as well as or on the scale that was expected. That is one reason why we have the new Bill three years after the first one. I imagine that one obstacle to the expansion that we expected was the difficulty of getting guarantees to back the loans from the banks. I know there has been some difficulty about this. So the


National Farmers' Union set up its Agricultural Credit Corporation to help, but I do not think that up to now it has been very successful.
Therefore, we have, in Clauses 4 and 5, an extension of the Government's grants to co-operatives, which we were discussing a moment or two ago, and in Clause 8 we bring in the Treasury as a second guarantor to cover, within limits, the guarantees given by the credit institutions. That is the background, and it is necessary to make it perfectly clear. I do not think that up to now I have said anything with which the Parliamentary Secretary would disagree.
We now come to the Minister's extraordinary decision to provide Treasury backing only to the N.F.U. Corporation and to exclude the co-operatives' Finance Federation. The Parliamentary Secretary tried desperately hard in Committee to make out some case for this favouring of one body against another. I must take the House through the Parliamentary Secretary's statements to show how shallow his case was.
First of all, the Parliamentary Secretary gave the Committee a completely wrong interpretation of our case, which was to ask that both organisations should get the same Treasury backing. The hon. Gentleman said that we were concerned about extending the business of the C.W.S. Bank. That is not correct. We do not want any special considerations for the C.W.S. Bank, even though, I would remind him, it has a very long and honourable record of helping agricultural and horticultural co-operatives. In fact, if it had not been for the help that the C.W.S. gave to the co-operatives in the 'twenties and 'thirties, and even earlier, many of them would have gone out of business.
If we could chart the losses and gains of the C.W.S. Bank over the years—it has now had 50 years' experience of this business—I think that we should find that on the whole the C.W.S. Bank had lost money, and it has lost it willingly because it really believes that agricultural co-operatives should be supported, and especially supported in difficult times. We do not ask for any special consideration for the C.W.S. Bank in spite of that record, which might have earned special consideration. We ask only for fair and equal treatment.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave three reasons for selecting the Corporation and excluding the Federation. First, he said that the Corporation was set up in conjunction with a consortium of merchant bankers. I do not know why that makes it any different from the C.W.S. arrangement with the agricultural co-operatives. But can the hon. Gentleman tell us who the bankers are and whether they are still supporting the Agricultural Credit Corporation, because in the Corporation's balance sheet that I have, there is no mention of the merchant bankers who are supposed to have provided the overdrafts.
Secondly, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Corporation is the only body which offers guarantees to banks to indemnify growers' loans against bad debts. This is not entirely correct. Hon. Members will notice how gentle I am. The Federation also covers bad debts, not so much of growers' operations but of the co-operatives which use its services. Fortunately, there are very few bad debts, and, therefore, it is a very small sum that it puts aside each year in the balance sheet for this purpose. It was only £2,000 in the balance sheet for March, 1963. In fact, the Federation is in a far stronger position to cover bad debts than is the Corporation.
The third argument that the Parliamentary Secretary put forward was that the Corporation fits easily into the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. But so does the Federation. In fact, the Federation itself is making loans for improvements, but, of course, mainly to co-operatives, which are now brought into the Bill for this purpose.
The Parliamentary Secretary said:
… the … Federation is operating solely as a finance agency which assists co-operatives in the provision of hire purchase and trade credit to farmers and growers for the purchase of machinery and other equipment, and, to some extent, mortgage credit for buildings.
That is perfectly true. The hon. Gentleman went on:
Of course, I agree that these are in themselves admirable purposes. But there is very little resemblance to the sort of job which is being undertaken by the Agricultural Credit Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 4th February, 1964; c. 282.]
This is where we part company, because the Federation does cover, and makes


advances for, development loans. In fact, one direct advance to an agricultural co-operative last year was for £40,000—one operation alone—which is far more, I imagine, than the Corporation has lent to anybody.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary accused me of having a bias against the N.F.U. Corporation. He strongly denied—amid, I would say, some rather sardonic laughter—that he had any bias against the Federation. I will deal with the accusation of bias because this is the central point that we must clear up. The Parliamentary Secretary made several statements—I have not quoted them all—about the Federation during the debate on our Amendment in Committee, and these were clearly based—at least, this is what I think—on information given to him by the National Farmers' Union, which is not exactly an unbiased and unprejudiced body in this business. Did he check at any point with the Federation whether the statements he was making were correct or not?
7.0 p.m.
In this, of course, I do not mean the hon. Gentleman himself alone, but his office. Did it at any point get in touch with the Federation to find out whether the statements he was making were correct or not? Or did the hon. Gentleman merely rely on the information given to him by the N.F.U. and make no attempt to check it? If no attempt was made—and I think my allegation is correct—to check his statements with the Federation, he must not talk to me about bias.
I ask hon. Members opposite who served on the Committee whether they did not think it rather strange that, throughout the proceedings—we had quite a long discussion on this matter and our Amendment was on the Notice Paper for some time before that—we had no facts, no figures, no documents, no information of any kind given to us about the Corporation's activities?
This is a body of the N.F.U. and hon. Members who have served on Standing Committees dealing with agriculture know that we are inundated with memoranda from the union on every conceivable subject. In fact, the Committees are littered with green paper

during their discussions. The union's memoranda are always on green paper and hon. Members on both sides of the House use it.
Yet we got no memoranda or information of any kind on this issue in Standing Committee. Why were we given no information about this body? Why did the hon. Gentleman say nothing about it? In contrast, as soon as this issue was raised, the Federation sent us its balance sheet. I was inundated with balance sheets and reports from the Federation, which was eager to provide all the information it could about its activities. From the Government, in dealing with the Corporation, however, all we had was a pool of silence.
We are asked to provide Treasury guarantees to an organisation shrouded, as far as we are concerned, in mystery. No information was given in Committee about the Corporation. Indeed, we had to go to the Board of Trade registry to get hold of its last published balance sheet, which I have here. It is dated September, 1962.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why no balance sheet has been published for the last 18 months? That is the first of four questions I have to put to him on the subject. The House should know that I have not suddenly sprung them on him. I telephoned his office yesterday morning to tell him that we would be putting these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and I discussed the matter and thought it only fair to let the hon. Gentleman have notice of our intention. I am only sorry that we did not get the same consideration from the Government during the Committee stage; however, we need not go into that for the moment.
My first question is, I repeat, why has no balance sheet been issued by the Federation for the last 18 months? Secondly, what is the Corporation's financial position? The balance sheet does not tell us a great deal and I do not want to say anything which would cast an unfair or undeserved criticism upon the Corporation's position. But the balance sheet shows that in September, 1962, it did not appear to be conducting a great deal of business and, indeed, was over £14,000 in debt.
Thirdly, I ask him to give us, for the first time, an account of the Corporation's activities, because we would like to know to what extent the Corporation in the past year, for instance, was giving backing to growers bank loans.
Finally, is the Corporation still "in the red"? We ask this because we are becoming a little suspicious about the real purpose of this operation, the favouring of one organisation as against another. During the Committee stage, hon. Gentlemen said:
… the Agricultural Credit Corporation has indicated its agreement that, apart from some building up of reserves to meet contingencies, it will work on a non-profit basis"—
that is what the Federation does—
and will not pay any dividend to its shareholders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee B: 4th February, 1964, c. 280.]
Seeing that, in 1962 at any rate, the Corporation was in debt, could we be assured that, under these "favoured nation" terms, the Treasury guarantees will not be used to wipe off the Corporation's debt? I hope that is not the purpose of the exercise but we want an assurance. In any case, the House should be rather careful about accepting the proposition, which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us in Committee, that the Corporation alone should be in the position of having the Treasury guarantees because, on the face of it, if we were to compare the two institutions on grounds of success and solvency, obviously one would choose the Federation.
However, we do not want any special consideration for the Federation. We merely want both these organisations to be treated alike. There is a solution to the problem which I hope the Government will now accept. I have no personal bias in this. I would like to see the Corporation put in a position to conduct what is a much-needed credit service for growers. We do need, however, to have better assurances than we have so far had about the strength of the Corporation and far more information about its activities before we can agree to its being accepted for Treasury guarantees.
I hope that the Corporation will be put in a position where it can compare favourably with the Federation for this purpose. The obvious solution is to let

the Federation continue to be the credit institution for the co-operatives and with Treasury backing of the kind provided in the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only here but in another place this battle will be fought until we have won because there is no case for excluding the Federation.
We could allow the reorganisation and strengthening of the Corporation to go on so that if could serve as the credit institution to back loans to individual growers and let the Federation look after the co-operatives. After all, they occupy the same building. They are separated by only two floors and it is really fantastic that we cannot persuade them to work together. I think that we may have to force them to do so. This is the situation we want to achieve by our Amendment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This is the same Amendment as that which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) tabled during the Committee stage and then withdrew. He has moved it, as he always does, in a most reasonable manner and I am most grateful to him for doing so.
The House will not expect me to go through all the arguments again, although the hon. Gentleman covered the ground quite considerably, but I must repeat the very substantial reasons for our decision to confine these grants, for some years at any rate, to the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
I should like to clear up the points which the hon. Gentleman made against my right hon. Friend. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend explained the idea inherent in the Clause and in giving an example of the type of organisation which could be used for this purpose he mentioned the A.C.C. Between Second Reading and Committee, my right hon. Friend had carefully to consider how to apply the provisions of the Clause, and it is right that in taking a decision on this he should weigh all the factors relevant to the case. This is what he did, as I announced in Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will accept that that is the way it happened.
There are three main points. First, the Agricultural Credit Corporation is at present the only body in existence


which is operating and capable of operating in the manner needed to implement the Clause.

Mr. Darling: indicated dissent

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member is shaking his head. In his argument as to why that is not so, he has covered the kind of operations undertaken by the Federation. But, in fact, the Federation does a different class of business. There is no question but that it is extremely useful, but it does not offer guarantees to the banks. We do not know whether it would be able to make arrangements with the banks for this purpose, and that is something which must be borne in mind. It would have to alter not only the scale, but the type of its business very considerably. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the business it is doing for co-operatives in the one or two instances which he mentioned.
Secondly, unlike the Corporation, the Federation has had no experience to date in the practical work of receiving and vetting applications from individual growers, which is terribly important for the proper implementation of these provisions.

Mr. A. E. Oram: Would the hon. Gentleman say what practical experience in these matters the Corporation has?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I shall come to that. The Corporation has outstanding to growers at the moment about £4·6 million and it deals with the receiving and vetting of applications from growers. It has experience of this practical work and, to tie in with the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, it is necessary that loans should be guaranteed only when the applicant is able to produce an acceptable business plan consistent with that scheme. I am sure that the House will agree that that is practical common sense.

Mr. Darling: I do not entirely accept what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying, but let us assume that it is correct. Under the 1960 legislation, there were grants to growers and they borrowed money while having to find two thirds themselves. In this Bill we give the same sort of facilities to co-operatives. What

arguments can the Parliamentary Secretary bring forward for excluding the Federation from doing this job for co-operatives? The Corporation did not have any experience when the 1960 legislation began to operate.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I agree that when there are two bodies within two floors of each other in the same building, it becomes rather farcical if they cannot work more closely together. I hope that I shall shortly be able to bring a ray of sunshine to the hon. Gentleman. At this stage, however, I must differentiate between the two bodies. It is true that in 1960 the experience of the Corporation was limited, but it now has that experience. We are now dealing with a wide range of provisions and it would be nonsense not to call on the experience which has already been built up.
The third important reason is that my right hon. Friend is most reluctant to set aside a sum of money for future possible applicants, which would have to be a substantial one. He could do this only at the expense of the money to be made available to the Corporation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hillsborough accepts this and accepts that it should be a limited sum.
The sum might be divided once or twice, or as often as needed; but if my right hon. Friend took the view that there might be future applicants who could fulfil the conditions of this provision, in all fairness he would have to keep part of the sum available in case such an applicant came forward during the coming few years. That would obviously diminish the amount of money available for growers at the moment.
What my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to get the maximum amount of credit to the horticultural grower and the horticultural co-operative as quickly and as speedily as possible to the advantage of both of them. It is no purpose of my right hon. Friend to bolster up a finance corporation or affect it in any other way.
However, the words of the hon. Gentleman have had an effect. In Committee, we heard of the desirability of some collaboration between the two bodies and this need has now become obvious, particularly as they are within


two floors of each other in the same building. I understand that these organisations now see excellent prospects of being able to work out an arrangement. The following are the points which they are discussing: where a co-operative is a member or regular customer of the Federation, it could be encouraged, though not required, to make its application for a loan of a type expected to attract a guarantee under the Clause to the Federation in the first instance. The Federation could then vet and process the application before forwarding it to the Corporation. In this way the Federation would be getting the experience which it lacks at the moment. At all subsequent stages the Federation could be brought into play as a useful instrument in the implementation of this Clause, where the applicant is one of its own members or regular customers.
But I must make it quite clear that for the time being the Government's grant will go to the Corporation only and that the Corporation must have final responsibility for the liabilities it incurs to the banks.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman spoke about discusisons, but there have been no discussions. As far as I know, there are not likely to be any. All that has happened is that the Corporation has sent a letter to the Federation. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary earlier whether he had been in touch with the Federation to get its point of view. Has he been in touch with the Federation to ask it if it will accept the situation, because if it will not, he cannot talk about discussions and the rest of his statement is misleading the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am not misleading the House. We have been in touch with the Federation. We have had contact with it through the other organisation, the A.C.C., and at no stage did the Corporation give us information about the Federation. The information which I was using during the Committee stage did not come from the Corporation. That is what the hon. Member for Hillsborough feared might be the case and I hope that I have put his fears at rest.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in this business. I under-

stand that discussions are taking place. The tone of the letter which I have before me—

Mr. Darling: I have a copy, too.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a copy and I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to it earlier.
It shows how a way could be paved towards an understanding after discussions between the two bodies. We hope that that will be so; indeed, it has to happen. The hon. Gentleman was concerned whether the Corporation might be in a position to seduce co-operatives from their allegiance to the Federation. But if they were encouraged to participate in the benefits provided by this Clause through the Federation, that, I think, would not happen. The guarantees which the Corporation has given to the banks will extend to the C.W.S. Bank and I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman confirmation of that. He asked questions about the Corporation and I thank him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his questions.

Mr. Thorpe: I was not present during the discussions in Committee so I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear with me. Did I hear him right? Did he say that it was not known whether the Federation would be prepared to have financial dealings with the banks and enter into such arrangements? Do we deduce from this that no inquiries have been made to see whether it is possible?

Mr. Scott.-Hopkins: What I said earlier was that it was not known. I could not have given an undertaking whether the Federation could come to an arrangement with the joint banks in this capacity. The Federation has no experience of doing that and I have no knowledge whether it could or not.

Mr. Thorpe: May I repeat what I asked? Perhaps I did not make it plain. Are we to deduce from this that attempts have not been made to find out whether the Federation would be prepared to enter into such arrangements with the banks?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has not got it quite right. It is not


for us to make attempts to find out whether it would or not. I assume that the Federation would. But I do not know whether the banks would be prepared to do so. It would be a matter between the Federation and the banks concerned.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked questions about the Corporation. He thought that it was in rather a mess. He asked about the balance sheet which was issued on 30th September, 1963. As the Corporation is a private company it does not have to publish its balance sheet, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. In the last two years the Corporation has made a small profit. At present, it has given bank guarantees totalling £4·6 million which as the hon. Gentleman will agree is a sizeable sum. This covers 1,084 cases relating to both horticulture and agriculture.

Mr. Oram: The Minister says that recently the Corporation has made a small profit. Can he say whether that profit has been enough to wipe out the £14,000 loss which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) indicated was revealed in the last published balance sheet?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Unless I went into details of the balance sheet, which I am not prepared to do, and explained each item, which would be a tedious business, it would be of no value to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not think that it would be right, nor do I intend to debate the significance of each item. The hon. Gentleman has seen the balance sheet and he knows to what I am referring.
No concern such as this has assets to cover all its liabilities. Theoretically, every debt which is guaranteed can go bad, but, in fact, only a proportion do. It is necessary only for the Corporation to have a revenue and reserves to cover what experience shows to be a likely percentage of bad debts, and that is how the Corporation proposes to operate in future. It is no secret that the Corporation will benefit from an enlargement of business. But that is not the object of the provisions in Clause 8. The purpose of that Clause is to provide to growers and co-operatives the benefits of enlarging their business through the pro-

vision of Government money which the Corporation will be handling.
I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I understand his disquiet. But I truly believe that the two bodies can, as they should, work out a modus vivendi. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that the money must go through the one body qualified to deal with this matter. That body will co-operate with the Federation to the full in assisting co-operatives to get the benefit of the money which the Government are making available through the provisions in this Clause. We do not want to squabble about who is to handle what. The important thing is to get the money to the growers.

Mr. Oram: I support the formidable case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in support of this Amendment. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was most inadequate, just as, in my judgment, was his statement in Committee. I was a member of that Standing Committee but, to my regret, I was called away from the sitting at which this matter was discussed. I have read the debate carefully and it is obvious from that, as it was today, that the Parliamentary Secretary finds himself hard put to reply to the case put forward in support of this Amendment.
The Amendment arises out of a question which I asked of the Minister during the Second Reading debate. I had noticed that Clause 8 made no reference to a specific body, any specific credit institution. I had also noticed that in the Press release accompanying the Bill, and in the Minister's Second Reading speech, there was a specific reference to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That is why I asked the perfectly straightforward question: were other suitable organisations to be included?
I received what at the time seemed to be a perfectly straightforward answer from the Minister. He said that there was nothing to exclude other bodies. But, as things have transpired since, it is very clear—indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary has repeated it—that the intention of the Government is to do just that, to give a monopoly to the one organisation and to exclude another highly suitable organisation from the operations under this Clause.
7.30 p.m.
In my judgment this Clause was drafted with the Corporation in mind—and only the Corporation in mind—and with the intention of by-passing the Agricultural Credit Federation. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough and underlined by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), there was no approach to the A.C.C. during the drafting of the Bill to see whether it would be interested in the operation of the scheme under Clause 8. I have little doubt that there was considerable consultation with the Corporation. I also know that there was an approach by the Federation indicating that it was interested. It took the initiative in expressing its interest in this matter.
Before the Minister answered my question, there had already been an indication that the Federation would be squeezed out. It is evident that the Minister was not carefully and judiciously weighing up this, that and the other, but that it had been decided beforehand that the Corporation would get the benefit and the Federation would be excluded. Merely because the Minister had not been sufficiently and adequately briefed, he fell into a trap on Second Reading and said there was no reason why another organisation should he excluded.
In the wording of Clause 8 there is nothing which specifically includes or excludes any organisation, but it is clear from the evidence that has been put forward that in practice a very effective exclusion was being prepared. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough pointed to the nature of the organisation to which it is proposed to give this monopoly. I have with me the membership clause of that organisation. I shall not read it in full. The A.C.C. is a controlling body of seven members, one of whom is to be the National Farmers' Union Development Council, and the six others are to be nominal members. In plain language, that means that there is one member, the National Farmers' Union Development Council, and six "stooges". That, in effect, is the structure of this organisation.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Member is to regale the House with these things he should get it right. In point

of fact, there are four directors from the development companies, the fifth is from the N.F.U., the sixth is an accountant, the seventh is a representative of an insurance company, and there are two vacancies. The chairman is a merchant banker, acting in his private capacity.

Mr. Oram: That clearly shows that this is very much an exclusive body controlled by the N.F.U. and all its members are nominated. The National Farmers' Union Development Council is also the effective member of an organisation called Agricultural Central Trading Ltd., which is in competition throughout the country with agricultural co-operative societies. So we are getting into a situation in which agricultural co-operative societies which wish to promote schemes will have to reveal what plans they are making to an organisation which in effect controls one of their chief competitors throughout the country.
My hon. Friend mentioned the dubious backing of this organisation. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the merchant bankers who heped in its establishment. I wonder whether he has information, which I have not got and which I invite from him, as to why the N.F.U. Mutual Insurance Company withdrew its backing from the organisation. There must be an interesting story which the House would find useful in reaching a conclusion on this matter.
I do not think the A.C.C. is the wonderful organisation which the Minister has pretended it is. It would not be a viable organisation without the backing it is seeking from this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has boasted again today that it is to work on a non-profit-making basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough pointed out that it was a loss-making organisation until quite recently. I invited the Minister to say to what extent it was now getting out of the "red", but he was not very forthcoming about that. It is not my idea of a non-profit-making organisation. My idea is an organisation which is economically viable and makes a surplus, but distributes that surplus and makes sure that it goes back to those from whom it is made. That is the basis


on which co-operative organisations work.
In accordance with that principle, the Federation would work. It has as members co-operative societies. It should have every right to service co-operative societies in this matter. It has been established by the C.W.S. Bank and agricultural co-operative societies. It is designed to work, and could work, for their mutual benefit. It has very practical experience in working with those co-operative societies. That, I think, answers the point the Minister made about its not having sufficient practical experience.
On Second Reading, and on other occasions, the Government have been pretending that they are helping co-operative societies to develop. This Amendment is a good test of how genuine they are in backing up co-operative organisations. Instead of giving these facilities to an existing co-operative finance organisation, the Government are giving them to a non-co-operative monopoly organisation. That does not show the right sort of spirit in a Government who pretend they are backing up co-operative organisations.
The whole of this business is most unsavoury. I was expecting to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a better reply than he gave in Committee, but I found his reply today just as unsatisfactory. I am sure that whatever decision the House reaches today the matter will not be allowed to rest there. It will not last for five years because something else will happen in those five years. The decision taken today could easily be reversed by a Government when they come to office, a Government who know what co-operative development means and which will legislate in its support.

Mr. Thorpe: I support the Amendment for the same reason that I opposed the previous one, namely, that I should like to see legislation clearly setting out the wishes of this House and not left to the arbitrary discrimination of the Minister. This Clause gives a power of monopoly. I am quite certain that a Government and party who believe passionately in free enterprise would consider very carefully before granting any monopolistic powers to any financial organisation. I am sure that at any rate the Government will be very cautious and

will listen to the Minister with great care and be utterly convinced before they grant a monopolistic power which in many other cases they have seen fit to oppose. That is the first principle, and I am sure that the House can rely upon the Government's enthusiastic support of that principle.
The second point arises out of the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. He was courteous enough to give way on two occasions, but, as I have learned from the short time I have been practising at the Bar, two questions are often inadequate when a witness is under cross-examination. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary this question: from the fact that he stated that he had no idea whether the Federation would be prepared to associate itself with the banks in the manner suggested in the Clause—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman must get it right. I said, "would be able", not "would be prepared".

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful for that intervention. It strengthens my case. It is not merely whether the Federation would wish to but whether it would have the capability. I take the point and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. The point is whether it would be capable of entering into these financial arrangements. I asked him whether one could deduce from that the fact that the Government had not taken steps to find out whether the Federation was so capable. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not the job of the Government to find out whether the Federation was capable.
If it is not the Government's job to find out whether an organisation is capable, how do they know that the A.C.C. can associate itself with the banks? Is the Minister seriously saying that the A.C.C. has not yet been asked whether it will be prepared to shoulder this extra responsibility under the Clause and add to its existing obligations? Of course there have been discussions. Of course the Minister satisfied himself that the A.C.C. was capable of discharging these obligations before he dreamed of asking the House to accept the proposition that the Corporation is so capable.
If the Minister is able to satisfy himself that the A.C.C. is perfectly willing and capable, because both those things


obtain, to associate itself with the banks and discharge this provision, why have not the Government taken measures to see if the Federation is so capable? If the Government have not taken measures to discover that, is it not somewhat premature to grant a monopoly on the basis that nobody else is capable?
I should have thought that the Government, because of their passionate belief in free enterprise, would like to see the maximum amount of co-operation between a quasi-official corporation and co-operative movements and, indeed, as the Amendment suggests—
any other institution properly constituted to provide credit facilities for agricultural and horticultural businesses".
Many of us hope that within the next five years, the duration of the operation of this Clause, we shall see created a land bank and various other credit facilities. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there will be no new development in agricultural credit?
I thought that this Government, who profess to be looking to the future, who desire to bring Britain up to date, and who believe in free enterprise, would have accepted the Amendment with alacrity. If any further word is to be heard from the Government on this subject, I hope that we shall be told that, in the interests of free enterprise, in the hope that we shall expand credit facilities and pump credit into the agricultural areas, because they are a Government who are empirical, who are not rigid, who do not believe in monopoly, and have the interests of free enterprise at heart, they accept the Amendment with the greatest happiness and pleasure.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peart: It is obvious that the Government will not accept the Amendment. I merely want to conclude the discussion by re-emphasising some of the main principles which guided my hon. Friends in tabling the Amendment. I am glad the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) spoke in the way that he did. On a previous occasion I began to be suspicious of him; I thought that he was beginning to collaborate with the Government. However, he stated the main issue. In this very important Measure, under which

Treasury aid is to be given to producers and to co-operatives, the Government are giving a monopoly to one organisation. That is the argument.
I remind hon. Members that originally the Minister himself made a specific promise. There is no doubt about this. The Minister cannot get away with it. I feel sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary, because the Minister himself has some responsibility here. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) intervened in the Minister's speech and said:
The Minister has referred, as did the Press release in connection with the Bill, to one organisation, the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Are we to understand that the Clause is intended to benefit only that corporation, or would other suitable credit institutions similarly benefit?
The Minister said:
There is no reason why this provision should not be applied to other institutions if so required. It will be seen that the Clause does not specify the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I was merely giving it as the example of what we had in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th Decemter, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 591.]
I tell the Parliamentary Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who must accept responsibility for the Bill, that this is a question of faith. This boils down to whether we believe what a Minister has said. The whole House accepted what the Minister said. It was always thought that the A.C.C. was given as an example. Does the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) wish to intervene, because I see him fidgeting? I will gladly give way. Does he accept what the Minister said, or does he know what is happening?
The Minister definitely made this statement, and throughout the Committee stage we pressed the Parliamentary Secretary over and over again. It was reasonably argued, not in any dogmatic way, that there should be flexibility; that we should not give the power to one credit organisation; that Agricultural Finance Ltd., which has been mentioned, is a reputable body. The figures are there to be seen. It has a membership of 25 agricultural and horticultural societies. With total assets of nearly £¼ million, it is soundly based to conduct the business in question. Already this admirable body has made


direct advances to agricultural and horticultural societies, in one instance to the tune of £40,000. It is a reputable organisation.
As in the Bill we are extending the scope of grants, not merely to individual purchasers, but also to co-operative societies, we believe that a body of this type, which has the interests of producer co-operation at heart, should be given the opportunity. It is a scandal that this body has to wait for another five years.
The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was not satisfactory. The Minister should have had consultations with the Federation. I go further: he should have explored all organisations which could have given credit. The hon. Member for Devon, North was right. We are engaged on a major Bill which seeks to revitalise horticulture. Credit arrangements are of great importance. I should like to see them extended. I should like to see a new credit organisation backed by the Treasury. I hope that this will come one day. Perhaps it will be done if the Liberals get into power. It will certainly be done if we get into power. No doubt the Liberals will support us when that time comes.
However, the extension of credit is of great concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) stated the case for the Amendment excellently, and there is no need for me to repeat his remarks which have been reinforced by other hon. Members. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was unsatisfactory, and I must advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.

Sir P. Agnew: I am not altogether happy about the position which has been reached on this Amendment. I have read carefully the OFFICIAL REPORT of what was said originally by my right hon. Friend. He is not able to be here today, and that is a great disadvantage to us all. The burden of the debate has fallen on his able Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I approach the issue with which the House is confronted in this way. It appears that the position is in contradistinction to what my right hon. Friend said—and I am sure that he meant it when he said

it—that is, that there would be no exclusion in favour of any one particular institution in arranging these credit arrangements.
Everybody recognises the appropriateness of having one of the financial institutions associated with the N.F.U. playing a large and prominent part in this work. However, I feel that it is nothing less than common sense that in the case of the rural co-operatives the financial institution with which they are well linked should be allowed—indeed invited—to play its part in arranging for their finances.
Could an assurance be given, even at this late stage, that before the Bill reaches another place steps will be taken so that the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place will report, favourably we trust, on the results of conversations, the object of which was to seek the means by which the Federation could be allowed to play its part? If such an assurance could be given I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) would be willing to withdraw the Amendment, which is really not necessary in itself. There is present with the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench a Minister representing Scotland, who is himself closely concerned with the Bill. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, for some such arrangement to be arrived at?

Mr. E. G. Willis: A reasonable appeal has just been made to the Parliamentary Secretary and, even as a matter of courtesy to his own side of the House, he should be prepared to reply to it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am reluctant to weary the House by repeating what I said earlier. That is why I did not rise to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). I cannot give him the assurance he wants. I can assure him that I hope that the two bodies will manage to co-operate and that the small rural co-operatives to which my right hon. Friend referred will be covered by finance from the A.C.C. It is our view that it is right to use the A.C.C. as the sole funnel in this period for the funds which are at our disposal under Clause 8.

Mr. Peart: Most unsatisfactory.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 149.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[7.55 p.m.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Allason, James
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Anderson, D. C.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Partridge, E.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barlow, Sir John
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith


Barter, John
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biffen, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Hollingworth, John
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bourne-Anton, A.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Braine, Bernard
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Iremonger, T. L.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullard, Denys
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Speir, Rupert


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stodart, J. A.


Cleaver, Leonard
Kershaw, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cole, Norman
Kitson, Timothy
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper, A. E.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Temple, John M.


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longbottom, Charles
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Currie, G. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Dance, James
MoLaren, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley R.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Doughty, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Duncan, Sir James
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)




Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Finlay, Graeme
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Freeth, Denzil
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Morgan, William
Wise, A. R.


Gardner, Edward
Morrison, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael



Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Mr. Hugh Rees and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh


Ainsley, William
Braddock, Mrs, E. M.
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Diamond, John


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dodds, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)


Barnett, Guy
Carmichael, Neil
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Beaney, Alan
Cliffe, Michael
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Bence, Cyril
Collick, Percy
Fernyhough, E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Finch, Harold


Benson, Sir George
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Foley, Maurice


Blyton, William
Darling, George
Forman, J. C.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowles, Frank
Deer, George
George,Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)




Gourlay, Harry
Lubbock, Eric
Rhodes, H.


Greenwood, Anthony
McBride, N.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McCann, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, James
Ross, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McInnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy
Small, William


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.
Snow, Julian


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce
Sorensen, R. W.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Milne, Edward
Spriggs, Leslie


Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, Thomas


Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holt, Arthur
Moyle, Arthur
Stonehouse, John


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howie, W. (Luton)
Oram, A. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Hoy, James H.
Oswald, Thomas
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will
Wade, Donald


Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Weitzman, David


Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John
Whitlook, William


Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones,Rt.Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willey, Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Popplewell, Ernest
Winterbottom, R. E.


Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur
Woof, Robert


King, Dr. Horace
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry



Lawson, George
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ledger, Ron
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Grey and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Clause 9.-(GRANTS FOR WHOLESALE MARKETS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out from "produce" to the end of line 34 and to insert:
means—

(a) fresh fruit, dried fruit, frozen fruit and fruit preserved in airtight containers;
(b) fresh vegetables, dried vegetables, frozen vegetables and vegetables preserved in airtight containers;
(c) fresh herbs and dried herbs;
(d) fresh edible fungi, dried edible fungi and edible fungi preserved in airtight containers;
(e) nuts;
(f) cut flowers;
(g) dried flowers;
(h) decorative foliage;
(i) Christmas trees;
(I) pot plants, bedding plants and herbaceous plants;
k) shrubs and flowering trees;
(l) fruit trees, fruit bushes and fruit plants; and
(m) seeds, bulbs, corms, tubers and seed potatoes".

The Amendment is in pursuance of an undertaking I gave in Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) put forward an Amendment adding fruit trees, fruit bushes and fruit plants to the defini-

tion of horticultural produce in the Covent Garden Market Act, 1961. This was a definition which we had borrowed for the purposes of Clause 9. As I understand it, there were technical difficulties involved in amending the Covent Garden Market Act which before it was enacted was a hybrid Bill. I promised to introduce an Amendment at a later stage which would have the same effect of making it abundantly clear that fruit trees, fruit bushes and fruit plants were to be regarded as horticultural produce for the purposes of this Clause. This is the sole purpose of this rather long Amendment.

Mr. Bullard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for this alteration of the definition in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART III.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, to leave out the second "and" and to insert:
(e) fruit trees, fruit bushes and fruit plants; and.
The purpose of the Amendment, like the Amendment we have agreed to Clause 9, is to rectify a possible omission from the Bill and to make it clear that fruit trees, fruit bushes and fruit


plants are included in the kinds of fresh horticultural produce for which grades could be prescribed. I am grateful once again to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) for drawing my attention to this in Committee. The Amendment is in pursuance of a promise which I gave there.

Mr. Bullard: I am, likewise, very grateful to my hon. Friend for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 24, leave out "the" and insert "a".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Schedule.—(PRICE STABILISATION LEVIES (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS).)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 11, to leave out second "the" and insert "a".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has received very close and careful scrutiny in its earlier stages by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This, indeed, was as it should be. My right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole believe this to be an important Measure for the future of the agricultural and horticultural industries. The discussions in Committee and in the House today have been protracted and have revealed a wide measure of agreement and support for the purposes of the Bill in each of its three parts, although, of course, there have been some disagreements between us.
Part 1 will provide the means to control imports through the imposition of minimum import prices and, as the House knows, we have recently been able to reach agreement in principle with our major overseas suppliers, Canada and Australia, the United States and the Argentine, whereby they will be co-operating in a system of minimum import prices for cereal imports, subject of course to the outcome of the present Annual Review on the introduction of standard quantities for home production.
If, as I hope, these outstanding questions can be brought to a successful con-

clusion, it will be the Government's intention to lay Orders before the House under the powers contained in Clause 1 to institute minimum import price arrangements for the cereals sector. I must ask the House to await the outcome of the current discussions, but there will be opportunity, of course, to consider the details when the Orders come up for debate later. Here I must repeat that to the extent that our supplying countries enter into and observe such minimum import prices as may be laid down, no levies will be applied to their exports, but the machinery will have to be there for imports from those countries which cannot or will not co-operate.
There has been considerable discussion about the fact that, while we need it immediately only in connection with cereals, Clause 1 has been drawn widely enough to enable it to be applied at some later date to other agricultural products. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and others have mentioned horticulture and other produce. It is right that attention should be drawn to this, but I believe that both sides of the House are agreed that it is sensible while we are legislating, and in view of the rapidly changing circumstances in the world market for foodstuffs—to which the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred earlier—and the growing interests in the possibility of international commodity agreements, to take power over a wide field, subject, of course, to the control of Parliament through the Orders which will have to be laid. If that is agreed, then the only question is how the necessary flexibility is to be achieved.
I hope that earlier discussions have shown why it is better not to try to anticipate precisely what range of products or methods of control will be appropriate in the future, but to take general enabling powers which can be brought into use according to the needs that arise at any time. That is why the definition of "related product", with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is very familiar, in subsection (9), is drawn as widely as it is. During the Committee stage my right hon. Friend promised to look at the drafting of this definition again and this he has done, but he feels bound to conclude, as he


said at the time, that there is no way of improving on the present wording.
The Bill has had to be drafted in terms which would enable my right hon. Friend, with, now, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, to specify any agricultural or horticultural produce produced in the United Kingdom which could become subject to the minimum import price arrangements in the interests of maintaining market stability, and also any products relating to any such produce.
On cereals, for example, which, I think, will underline the point that I am making, we shall want to cover not only competing cereals, such as maize which falls within the definition of related product, but also the various cereal flours, the meals, groats and other types of worked cereals, as well as the cereal offals.
In the light of our experience in operating minimum import price arrangements, we may need to add other related products to the initial list in the cereals sector, but the powers in the Clause must cover, not only the circumstances of cereals, with which we are immediately concerned, but also those which might arise on other commodities to which it may become necessary to apply minimum import prices in the future. This is what I was saying during an earlier debate on the Report stage as to why these wider powers are necessary. The related products range, of course, from commodities like flour, which are closely related to the primary produce from which they are derived, to those which are economically remote from the primary produce.
If we had tried to define the field more closely, as hon. Members opposite asked us to do, it would have been necessary to draw an arbitrary line across what is virtually a continuous gradation of such commodities. The right place to draw the line for cereals would not necessarily be the right place for some other type of commodity that may he added in the future.
I will very quickly deal with the Orders procedure. In deciding what types of Orders to provide for in the Clause, we had in mind two considerations: first, the need for adequate par-

liamentary control; and, secondly, the practical requirements for operating a minimum import price system. The effect of subsection (7) is to require that the initial stage in applying the powers in the Clause to any commodity would be subject to affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
The other Order-making powers in the Clause, that is to say, the prescription of minimum import prices, the mechanism for applying levies, and the conditions for the payment of any allowances or reliefs, may be exercised by negative Resolution procedure, but an exception is made for an Order dealing only with the rates of any levy, allowance or relief which has been provided for in a previous Order already discussed and agreed by Parliament.
After an Order had been made laying down the general arrangements for applying levies to a particular sector and this had been laid before Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would be able to prescribe the actual rates of levy without reference to the House.
Not only is this the only practical arrangement given the likelihood that rates of levy may at times have to be altered very quickly and quite frequently, too, but it seems to be a perfectly acceptable arrangement since the size of the levy will be determined by the level of the statutory minimum price which the House will already have approved under a previous Order.
Indeed, the only purpose of the levy will be to enforce the necessary floor price, and I must emphasise, as I said in an earlier debate, that it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend and the Government to legislate to raise the general level of prices or erect any kind of restrictive barrier through the operation of this Clause. Its sole purpose is to put a floor into our market in order to safeguard our present system of agricultural support from the pressures of unreasonably priced cereal imports which might otherwise from time to time, as they have in the past, undermine our market.
I now come to the second part of the Bill, which is Clauses 2 to 7 and which deals with horticulture. This considerably extends the system of grants for


growers and co-operatives initiated by the Horticulture Act of 1960. The £8 million provided by that Act is increased to £24 million by the provisions of the Bill of which a great deal will go to extending the horticulture improvement scheme. The extended scheme will include facilities to improve the efficiency of the production, as well as the marketing, of horticultural produce.
We have in mind especially equipment to improve the quality and reduce the costs of production, for example, the replacement and reconstruction of outdated glass, with the latest technical devices such as the automatic control of watering and ventilation, CO2 equipment, and specialist machinery for planting and harvesting. We intend to lay a draft scheme before the House as soon as possible after the Bill has been enacted.
We have taken note of the many helpful suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading and in Standing Committee and we are, of course, continuing our discussions with the leaders of the industry on the details of the scheme.
We also intend as soon as possible to lay a draft scheme under Clause 2, which deals with the small business grant. Whereas grants under the extended Horticulture Improvement Scheme will be made towards the cost of specific improvements, the small business grant is a general contribution to working capital to meet the special needs of the small business, for example, to enable the grower to buy a new stock of plants or containers, or to tide him over a period of change from one type of production to another whilst little or no income may be flowing in. This should help many small growers to expand their businesses, or to switch to a more profitable line of production.
Here, I must repeat, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, how important it is that in making schemes under this Clause we should define who can qualify for this particular grant and that once Parliament has approved the definition we must adhere to it.
The point I made during Report stage is that under the powers provided in the Bill, the scheme must contain the various conditions and these are what we are discussing at this moment

with representatives of the N.F.U. This should help many small growers to expand their business or switch to more profitable lines of production. This is the direct help that growers will get from Government grants, and it will, of course, be supplemented by the credit facilities to which they will have much greater access as a result of Clause 8.
I am sorry that earlier today hon. Members opposite were unwilling to accept as a satisfactory solution that the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Agricultural Finance Federation would work together. I do not want to pursue this point at this juncture except to say that I hope that some accommodation can be arrived at between the two parties so that there can be co-operation between them in the years ahead.
The Bill provides two major contributions towards the improved marketing of horticultural produce. A great deal of thought has already been put into this side of the business both by the Government and by the industry itself, and some of the fruits of that consideration are contained in the Bill. But there will be need for continuing study and research. I think that the House will be glad to know in this connection, that there is an excellent prospect that next autumn Wye College, of the University of London, will be setting up a department of horticultural marketing headed by a professor. The horticulture industry itself, both the growing and the distributive sides, will be making substantial donations to the cost of this new department over an initial three-year period.
To return to the Bill, the first important provision in this connection consists of the grants under Clause 9 for the redevelopment of the major wholesale markets. These have been universally welcomed, and I am confident that they will help to bring into being over the next decade a network of modern and efficient wholesale markets of which this country can justifiably be very proud.
The other major innovation on the marketing side to which I shall refer is the introduction of compulsory grading. Both sides of the House are, I think, agreed, and so is the industry, that this is really the only way forward. The only question which has been raised is


whether the powers in the Bill are adequate and, in particular, whether they ought to be extended to the retail stage. I hope that I shall be in order if I try to explain briefly why my right hon. Friend thinks that the powers in the Bill are adequate.
Grading at the wholesale stage is intended to help the industry to meet, on fair terms, competition from abroad. Almost all produce from abroad is now graded in some way. Once grading has been introduced, there will be much greater uniformity in home produce, and none of the produce bought by retailers from wholesalers will be below the minimum grade.
Two suggestions were made. First, it was suggested that retailers buying graded produce should be compelled to sell it as such. This was urged, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). Secondly, it was suggested that retailers should not be allowed to obtain ungraded produce direct from the grower 
The first suggestion smacks of unnecessary regimentation, and it would be very difficult to defend. The housewife buys fruit and vegetables on sight, and a greengrocer who tried to mix his produce or sell the lower quality at an inflated price would very soon find himself losing his trade. It is not necessary to add to the burdens of the retailers or to the heavy load on local inspectors by making a statutory obligation which would not bring an effective benefit. Moreover, if retailers do choose to sell by our grade designations, they will be obliged to do so correctly, that is, the produce must be up to the required standard, or they will be open to prosecution under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act.
The second suggestion was that too much produce would be ungraded because growers would be allowed to sell direct to retailers. Clause 11(3) enables my right hon. Friend to stop this method of trading either partly or wholly. I repeat the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave several times in Committee. It is the Government's intention that the benefits flowing from grading should not be undermined by too great a proportion of ungraded pro-

duce finding its way on to the market, by coming straight from the grower to the retailer, to the detriment of sales of graded produce. If we found that this were happening, we should not hesitate to make an Order, subject, of course, to consulting the interests affected.
I have dealt briefly with some of the major features of the Bill which have been the subject of a great deal of discussion earlier. The Bill has been amended in some respects since its introduction, and I am glad that we have been able this afternoon to underline that this is a Measure for the United Kingdom as a whole. Scottish Members will be glad to know that we are extending some of the Order-making responsibilities under Clause 1 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be replying to the debate.
I am glad, also, that we have been able to meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides about strengthening the hands of the co-operatives in the horticulture industry, which will in any case benefit considerably from the provisions of the Bill.
I suggest to the House that we now have an even better Bill and one which will prove its value for many years to come in putting both our agricultural and horticultural industries on a sounder footing in the context of the conditions of today and of tomorrow.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary has brought the Bill through its long journey on its way to the Statute Book, and personally, I congratulate him. We have had our differences, but in Committee and throughout our proceedings he has been an admirable Parliamentary Secretary. This is not to say that I do not disagree with him on many issues, but the Bill itself represents a wide measure of agreement. There is no fundamental difference in principle here. It is remarkable that the Bill gives the Government sweeping powers the like of which we have not had since all the controversies of the last century, and I am rather surprised at the lack of interest in it not so much in the House but outside. This lack of interest is a pity having regard to the fact that it gives the Government such


wide powers to control our imports of food and related agricultural products. It is a sweeping Measure.
As we said on Second Reading, the Bill is really two Bills. As an Opposition, we have tried to be constructive. We have approved the Bill in principle. We accept the need to co-ordinate and phase imports and we accept the need to give our horticulture industry the necessary financial aid. There is disagreement here and there about what methods should be used, and we have concentrated on these in Committee and in our debate today. We have tried to improve the Bill. At one stage, we thought that we had amended it, but the words have now been taken out.
Clause 1 implements the Government's policy of May, 1963. We all know why we have this Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary may disagree with my emphasis, but I suggest that the reasons are these. First, there was the breakdown of the Common Market negotiations. The Government needed to bring out a new policy because there was then no policy in existence. Second, there was the crisis created by the rise in our Exchequer support system over two years ago, when the Minister had to ask the House for an increased Estimate. It became obvious that the Government had to find measures whereby Exchequer support could be controlled.
I have always taken the view that the deficiency payment system operated in a free market would inevitably produce that situation. The Bill is designed partly to prevent it. This is what we are talking about today, whether our support system can operate in a free market, and why there should be this change. The Parliamentary Secretary referred also to the problem of standard quantities. Although they are not actually dealt with by Clause 1, the whole policy question revolving around standard quantities is affected by the Clause.
There is still controversy in the agricultural world about the policy behind this Clause. The farmer is told, "If you accept standard quantities, I will give you import control; accept Clause 1 and standard quantities, and here you will have a quid pro quo." We say to our outside suppliers, "If we impose import levies, we will guarantee you a

share in the market." We therefore have this balance of views about the working of Clause 1, and the policy that has inspired it.
Again, any Government must consider, in any scheme, how best to balance many other interests. I have mentioned the interests of the producer and of the outsider, particularly the interests of the E.F.T.A. countries but, above all, there are the interests of the consumer, and throughout I have reminded the Minister that he is not only Minister of Agriculture, but Minister of Food and Minister of Fisheries. In the same way, the Secretary of State is not just responsible for Scottish agriculture but for the Scottish food situation in the general sense. That is why we are glad that the Secretary of State will be responsible for Orders, and will be brought into discussions. We must balance all the interests I have mentioned, together with the interests of the Commonwealth and our interests in the G.A.T.T.
We know that, according to the Minister, Clause 1 will operate immediately for cereals, but it also deals with agriculture and horticulture in a wide sense. I remember our Committee discussions about the sweeping powers in related Clauses. The powers could apply to hides and skins, and a wide variety of related products. It may well be that they will not be used but, as the Government will have them, we must consider this Clause in relation to the use of those powers by the Government in charge.
I am rather amused that the Government should say that this policy favours a free market system and the minimum of regulations. That is what the Minister recently said at Exeter when pointing out the difference between Conservative and Labour agricultural policies. I should have thought that neither the Bill nor this Clause represented free enterprise. The Government are given tremendous power of control. This is not the law of supply and demand operating, so let us hope that we have none of that kind of nonsense from Conservative Members.
This is a planning Bill. Clause 1 gives the Minister sweeping powers to deal effectively with minimum import prices and to impose levies to control imports. We have ended the whole system of the


country's free imports from many other parts of the world. This Bill ends that system. I should have hoped that there would have been jubilation in Conservative ranks—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman must not make that point. If we had accepted the Amendment which put a physical restriction into Clause 1, I would have agreed with him, but we are not by any means ending free enterprise by the operation of Clause 1. This is purely a fiscal method of protecting the bottom of our market.

Mr. Peart: When we were discussing the banning of imports, the hon. Gentleman argued that we did not need those words and that we had all the powers necessary, so I cannot see how he can use this argument now. I suggest that it was nonsense for the Minister of Agriculture, when addressing a Conservative audience recently, to say that the Government's policy favoured a free-market system and a minimum of regulations. Hon. Members opposite know it to be nonsense—

Mr. Farr: To have the powers, and to make use of them, are two vastly different things. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in this country one can still be hanged for stealing a sheep, but one is not likely to be.

Mr. Peart: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, should make so naїve an intervention. This Clause ends for ever the whole free-enterprise system, and free imports. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have regarded it as a great turning point in our history—and it is, as I am trying to suggest. If they have not read the Bill yet, I am sorry for them. I am also sorry that the Minister does not appreciate the significance of his own Bill, and neither does the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister has sweeping powers. This is an attempt to co-ordinate and phase our imports.
When the Minister made his famous speech giving the policy behind Clause 1, he suggested that we should have to have some new machinery. I have quoted before what he said. He stated:
The detailed arrangements for the different commodities

which are affected by Clause 1
which we would aim to agree with our overseas suppliers might well need to include a body to keep under review the level of supplies and also the phasing of those supplies in our markets in the light of changes in the pattern here and overseas and other factors, such as the opening up of new markets. But whether or not a body of this kind will be necessary, and, if so, what form it should take, will depend on the arrangements we finally make. We are keeping an open mind about it. It would be unwise to decide on the machinery before we can see clearly what its task would be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1963; Vol. 678, c. 449–50.]
One of the weaknesses of Clause l—and this was one of our difficulties in Committee—is that we are still uncertain about how it will be administered. I have asked over and over again about the two types of levy which will operate, one in relation to countries with which we have an agreement and the other in relation to non-agreement countries. Will the civil servants in the Ministry operate Clause 1? Will they deal with the question of imposing a levy? Probably the Customs people will do the job on a day-to-day basis. But what about the type of machinery which will have to be created.

Mr. Hilton: That is the question.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister satisfied that the existing arrangements in the Ministry are satisfactory? I am not denigrating the British Civil Service, for which I have a great respect. I think that it is the best in the world. I know that the Minister is very lucky in his Department. I am not criticising the personnel. I am merely asking whether the machinery of the Civil Service in the Ministry will operate this, or will new machinery have to be introduced?
I think that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) would agree that inevitably some form of machinery must be created. Both the Liberal Party and the Labour Party are in agreement about our general agricultural policy. I suggest to the Minister that the people in the trade accept this. I have a document from the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants. I hope that the Government have heard its view. It should have been consulted. I expect that it has been consulted. It comes


out in favour of a non-trading commission which would represent all interests in cereal marketing.
I have here the proposals of another reputable organisation, the Compound Animal Feeding Stuffs Manufacturers National Association. This body, too, has come out in favour of some new machinery which could operate through
a non-trading body representative of growers, importers, merchants and consumers charged with the general oversight of certain existing and some new functions in connection with the marketing of grain. These might include advising the Government on minimum import price levels, the collection of marketing information …
and so on. The Minister revealed today that he was not in a position to have this information. That was one of the arguments he used against my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). But the trade is prepared to co-operate with the Government. There is good will.
I should like to know how this Clause will be administered. I have a feeling that the Government are lagging behind in this matter. One day, they will have to wake up, and inevitably some new machinery must be introduced. Part I gives wide powers to the Government.
I pass quickly to horticulture. Here we have no disagreement and we are anxious to help. In Clause 2, the Bill seeks to give grants of varying kinds to improve the efficiency of small production businesses and to extend the horticultural improvements scheme. Then we have specific grants for the clearing of orchards. Clause 4 provides grants for the improvement or initial operation of co-operative marketing businesses and grants for co-operative markets and the development of marketing policy. These are grants for wholesale markets of national importance. Added to that there is the provision of credit facilities.
We on this side welcome all these proposals in the Bill. The horticultural industry has an output of approximately £160 million. It is an important part of our general agricultural industry. Naturally, we are anxious to help not only individual growers, but also those who could combine in their various co-operatives.
On the other hand, the Government must recognise that acceptance of the

Clauses of the Bill still makes some fruit growers dubious. I have with me a copy of the Kent Messenger, a good paper, of 6th December. Under the heading
Fruit growers dubious over new Horticulture Bill",
this journal, which is not a Socialist paper, states:
Acclaimed by Government supporters as the panacea for ills besetting the fruit-growing industry, the new Agriculture and Horticulture Bill is being viewed with reserve by leading Kent growers. Sugar on the pill comprises a promise of horticultural aid of some £50 million over the next ten years with individual grants up to £500.
That is Part II of the Bill. It goes on to say:
Less palatable is the news that tariff protection is to be abolished. Far-sighted growers see such a provision as making only for eventual entry into the Common Market, although the Minister 
denies it. That is the Kent Messenger. I also have with me the Commercial Grower, a very good paper which, I hope, hon. Members opposite read. Let me quote its editorial. It states that in many other quarters apart from Kent
there is the uneasy suspicion that horticulture has sold its traditional heritage, the tariff, for a mess of pottage.
That is strong language.
I remind the Minister that certain of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), and, indeed, my hon. Friends, have said over and over again that what the Government are now doing will be no substitute for the abolition of the tariff. Whilst we are anxious to enable productive units to be more viable, hasty abolition of the tariff and the use of import control under Part I—and horticulture comes not only in Part II, but also in Part I of the Bill—could be disastrous for many of our growers.
I must repeat my suspicions of the intentions of the Government. This fear has been expressed by people in the industry. They are suspicious that tariffs will be removed and then, together with the power and the machinery provided in Part I, there will be entry into Europe on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. Thorpe: Splendid.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Devon, North says "Splendid". For me, it would not be splendid. I have suspicions about the result, because it could cause disaster for many of our producers. We are anxious, therefore, to press the Government on this matter. Whilst we accept that this aid should be given, we trust that there will be no rash attempt to remove the tariff overnight and to leave producers at the mercy of unfair competition.
Therefore, we on this side welcome the Bill. We approve of the powers which it contains. We recognise that this is another stage towards sensible planning which we have advocated for a long time. The events which have occurred over the years would eventually force any Government to respond to a new situation.
Here in this Bill we are seeking to have wide powers to phase and co-ordinate imports, to see that the market is stable, to create a measure of stability in the market position, and to pave the way, I hope, for a further development of international commodity agreements; and at home, to build up a horticulture industry which has previously been neglected. I have not dealt with marketing. I am sorry that an Amendment which I had down has not been debated. I would only say on the question of national markets that the idea that we should have a national marketing system without regional planning is really absurd. There should be some regional planning.
I would give it to the hon. Member the Member for Devon, North that the Common Market in France, as we know, under the Monnet Plan, has caused a great development to take place in the building up of new markets. It has happened also in Western Germany. I went to see the Grossmarkt in Hamburg. Let hon. Members go to see the Hamburg market and let them go to France, to Lyons, where under the Monnet Plan and because of central direction a new market has been created. We want that here, but when I have asked for this over and over again we have only got the vague reply that aid will be given. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government should have some idea of horticultural marketing in relation to regional planning. The tragedy in the wider field is that no authority exists.

The Horticultural Marketing Council has gone. No authority exists, as we would wish it to exist, that is an authority with adequate powers.
We shall still press upon the Government the need to do something, but, despite our criticisms, we welcome the Bill, and we hope that it will bring benefits not only to the producers but also to the consumers.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): Like most hon. Members on both sides of the House who have the interests of farming and horticulture at heart I welcome the Bill. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend, and also my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who has borne the burden right the way through both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. He has done so with admirable clarity, patience and firmness, for which we are all indebted to him.
I regard the Bill as one of the two pillars of the Goverment's new policy for agriculture. It shows solid proof of the Government's intention to secure adequate markets and controlled imports. I would put it the other way round from the way the hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) put it. While there is still a certain amount of mistrust and bewilderment about it, it should by this time be clear to all farmers, and I would suggest that the Government have a right to expect, that the industry on its side will co-operate to the full over the question of standard quantities.
I have only two specific reflections to make on the Bill as a whole. Perhaps I should have spoken up over this when we were discussing Clause 1, but through no fault of my own I missed half of the debate and I thought that it would perhaps be legitimate to leave this to Third Reading. I accept that the powers in Clause 1 over horticultural products generally are adequate. With this I do not quarrel, but I should like to suggest to the Minister that there is room, on the basis of the evidence we heard in Committee and in this debate today, for much more preparation in the horticulture field for the exercise of minimum prices than anything we have evidence of today.
I think it legitimate to ask whether the complexity of the exercise of the


minimum price system for horticultural products is in fact clear to the House and to the country as a result of this Bill. To emphasise this I think it fair to direct the attention of the House for a moment to the sort of systems—and there are many, and very varied they are—which are being carried on in Europe today. There is, for instance, the classical one between Germany and Italy where the German frontier is closed when prices fall below a certain agreed minimum which equals the price paid to the German producer over a specific period, and can only be determined by the Zentrall Market und Preisberichstelle organisation which covers 12 major markets all the time and a number of minor markets as well occasionally. It is an organisation the like of which we have not envisaged yet in this country.
This is a true minimum price system, but the system exercised between Holland and Germany is entirely different. The market is open all the time. It depends on the exercise of a minimum export price from Holland into Germany. This can be arrived at only when there is a large measure of control over marketing, as there is in Holland. The system used within the Benelux countries is entirely different, and the system used in France is more geared to the cost of living index than to a return to the grower.
I say this only to emphasise that a great deal of thought, preparation and international negotiation must be necessary before we can say that we are in a position to implement the powers alluded to in the Bill. I should like to hear this evening or on some early occasion evidence from our Ministers of Agriculture that machinery is being set up, or that a department of the Ministry is being required, to prepare a little further. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it is all very well in regard to the commodities that one can see and in respect of which one must exercise these powers, but it is useless to debate at this stage those which do not yet come into the picture. But surely we can be precise to some degree.
We know where in the horticultural sector the principal dangers will come from. They will come from Holland.

In the course of time, and it will not be very long, they will come from Spain and Italy, where the climate is all on the side of the exporter to this country and against us, and as they become more efficient in the production of, for example, tomatoes, the danger will arise. Here are our targets, and this is what we should be preparing for. We can do it only by studying the systems which apply in Europe now and producing a blueprint on which we can negotiate ahead of time. I stress this.
My second point refers to Clause 9—I welcome it—under which up to £20 million is to be available for the improvement of major wholesale markets for horticultural produce. I do not agree with the Opposition Amendment, for reasons which were explained by the Ministers in Committee. Nevertheless, I go with the Opposition to the extent that I do net accept that local authorities are necessarily the best authorities or the experts in how to set up a horticultural market, in the equipment involved in the setting up of markets or, indeed, in how they should be run. I am not satisfied, for instance, even in the case of those which have been set up in recent years. One or two local authorities, Sheffield, for example, have had initiative in this direction. I could name a large grower in my part of the world—he is a most efficient marketing man—who ships produce to Sheffield. His turnover has gone down by well over 50 per cent. since that market started. There is some reason for that.
Therefore, I would hope that at least guidance would be forthcoming from the Ministry wherever a grant of this kind is involved, and I hope that there will be at least an attempt to ensure that such things as standard levels, conveyor equipment, standard pallets, access, siting of the markets and storage facilities are adequately dealt with and upon truly expert advice. The advice has to be local as well as theoretical, of course, because markets are a particularly sensitive organism. However, perhaps together with the National Farmers' Union and other interested organisations, the Ministry can ensure that the money will not be forthcoming until there is general satisfaction in respect of the sort of considerations which have played a part in the plan.
With these two provisos, I repeat that I welcome the Bill. I believe that it spells a real step forward—indeed represents a high tidemark in the history of agriculture—which has not yet, as the hon. Member for Workington stressed, been truly appreciated in the country, although I am sure that it soon will be.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks about horticulture and his valuable contribution about marketing. I agree that this is a very important Bill and I am sure that it will find its place alongside the Acts of 1947 and 1957, although not for exactly the same reasons. Perhaps, to those who follow the development of agricultural policy, it is advantageous to remember that the object of the 1947 Act was that there should be guaranteed prices for as much food as it was in the national interest that we should grow in our own country. It was envisaged that there might be a limit to the amount of any commodity for which there would be guaranteed prices.
We are living in very different circumstances today and our needs are different. That is the basis of the Bill. From a period of shortages we have moved to one of embarrassing regional abundances in the world. There is a need to do all we can to move forward to proper, world wide trading agreements because we cannot restrict production in this country without remembering the needs of the world.
Some action had to be taken to end the open-ended commitments of the Exchequer. The system of deficiency payments in a free market had creaked to a halt and the Government, after years of waiting and of failing to anticipate the inevitable, were forced to reach a decision. There had to he a more decisive anti-dumping machinery.
Secondly, over the years, hon. Members—particularly on the benches opposite—have been castigating Ministers, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, for failure to take speedy and decisive action about dumping. That at least has been corrected, I hope. The third need is for a better return to the industry. We share the hope of the

Parliamentary Secretary that agriculture and horticulture will be put on a sounder footing.
I hope to hear from the hon. Gentleman how Clause 1 will operate and what its effect will be on our agriculture. Some years ago we were given a guarantee that the 1957 Act would remain valid during the lifetime of this Parliament. The assurance was given during the Common Market negotiations. The danger of the Minister's enthusiasm for ditching agriculture on the altar of European unity has now subsided, so perhaps we may be told what guarantee there is to be for the future of the Act.
That Act was an attempt to put a floor into the market—into income, prices, and net returns. That is also the object of this Measure, through the levies. Obviously, the 1957 Act has failed. That is the opinion of farmers from one end of the country to another. If the object of Clause 1 of the Bill is again to put a floor under the market, as the Parliamentary Secretary told the House, will that work any better than the 1957 Act did?
From every part of the country there have come claims from the National Farmers' Union for substantially increased revenue over the next few years—25 per cent. in three years. Some sectors of the industry are very depressed, the milk industry in particular. That clamour is heard from one end of the country to the other as farmers say that the more they increase production, the lower are their returns. Perhaps before the debate ends we can have some assurance of some effort to remedy the position.
In the debate in May last year, when the Minister of Agriculture introduced his new policy which he had had to think up in view of our failure to join Europe, he was challenged by many hon. Members, including myself, to reply to the claim that there should be an adequate income for the agricultural community. But there was not a word in his speech on that occasion to show what he hoped or expeected the net return to the agricultural community to be as a result of his new policy. Farmers are looking to Clause 1 to find out and the acid test for them is how the Clause will be operated.
After all, the Bill is an enabling Measure giving wide and sweeping powers, but until the Orders are made, we shall not know how it will be operated. We want to know whether the Government have any policy about the net return which farmers can expect. This is the question which was not answered last May and which needs to be answered today, and I believe that the farming community deserves an answer. Otherwise the Clause merely creates the machinery and gives the Government power.
I regard this as a Bill of fundamental importance and before it leaves the House the Government should tell us—and there has not yet been a word—how they propose to utilise their enabling powers under Clause 1. The test of this, as of any major agriculture Bill, is whether it is good for British agriculture. I do not doubt that this Clause is badly needed and that its wide and sweeping powers are necessary in the conditions of today, and it may well be that under it my right hon. Friends of the next Administration will be able to set up whatever bodies are required to co-ordinate home and foreign supplies. Even the Minister has indicated that he has envisaged some kind of co-ordinating body.
The second test is how the Clause will be implemented. I understand that its object is not to increase Treasury receipts and that any such increase will be a mere side wind. I hope that it will not be used to raise the price of food. Over the years there has been a policy of cheap food. The provisions in this Clause should be used carefully and other considerations should be fully borne in mind. If a big levy is imposed it would have considerable consequences on the price of food, and a number of indirect consequences resulting from an increase in the price of foodstuffs. Having regard to suggestions made during the Second Reading debate that there should be a robust use of the provisions in this Clause, I ask the Minister who will be in charge of the operation to ensure that all other considerations are fully borne in mind before such use is made of it. Even the slightest increase in the levy could have wide-reaching consequences.
The second test of the importance of any agricultural Measure is the interests of the consumer. There is a danger,

which may not have been seen by the Government, that a burden will be shifted from the taxpayer to the consumer, to those people least able to pay. So wide are the powers under this Clause that it is possib1e for that to happen, and that is why I urge that the greatest care should be exercised in the implementation of these provisions. It would be a major tragedy if a Clause in such an important Measure was used as a device to shift a burden on to the weaker members of the community.
The third consideration to be borne in mind when testing the value of any agricultural Measure is the effect on production. I should be loath to agree to any Measure which might unduly restrict home production. We have a moral duty to our own community, but we have also a moral duty in relation to the world-wide shortage of food. I hope that will be borne in mind when standard quantities are decided on and that care will be exercised, particularly in relation to beef. I hope that the Minister will be generous when the standard quality for this is decided upon.
I firmly believe, and have said so on many occasions, that if we could solve the beef problem we would also solve the problem of milk. A tragedy today is the under-recoupment in the milk industry. Many of our farmers would prefer the easier task of beef rearing to the more difficult operation of milk production. When the time comes to make up the levies and standard quantities I ask that the Minister be exceedingly generous to the farmers to ensure that the standard quantity for beef is not pitched too low, with consequent restriction of production.
The last consideration in respect of standard quantities, which are a quid pro quo for the levies in this case, is the needs of overseas trade. We know that one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill is the failure in the past to phase imports of food. We recall that the Minister asked for a Supplementary Estimate, and the situation at the end of the Argentina meat strike with the upsurge in the imports of beef. When the Minister continues negotiations with other countries I hope that he will continue to stress the value of stabilised markets in this country. I do not think that that advantage is fully appreciated by countries which export to us and


with whom we are currently negotiating.
Now that, for a time at least, the Government's efforts to make us join the Common Market have come to a halt, I should like to examine the implications of Clause 1 and to find the objects of the Government about introduction—having regard to their plans in the past—to the Common Market. I was in Paris, at the Assembly of Western European Union, in December, when we heard with great interest the reported comments on the Foreign Secretary's speech at The Hague a few days earlier. The reported comments were that we in this country were introducing import prices and moving in a similar direction to the Common Market price system. It seemed that the Foreign Secretary was trying to persuade other delegates to the Assembly at The Hague that we were trying to bring ourselves into line with the Common Market countries.
Perhaps we could have some indication before we part with this Bill as to whether that is one of the aims of Clause 1. I have confined myself to Clause 1. Where do the Government stand as regards the Common Market? If we find ourselves again negotiating to join the Common Market, does it mean that we shall be aligning our policies for British agriculture? Is there any guarantee that even the present prosperity of the agriculture industry—which I qualify very much because it is in great dispute—and the present net return of the industry will not be further eroded?
Farmers will be asking three questions. They will ask, how will this Bill affect our incomes? What are the standard quantities in the mind of the Government? What restrictions will there be in future having regard to increased efficiency generally? Consumers will also be asking, is the machinery of Clause 1 there merely as stabilising machinery? Is it a method of raising food prices? Is it in any way the abandoning of the present cheap food policy? Overseas traders will be asking, is the machinery effective and, are the attractions of a stable market really worth while?
I hope that we can have some answers to these questions. I hope that the Government will reveal to the House, even at the end of the journey of this Bill through this House, in Committee and back here, an indication, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, of the Government's intentions on these points. I welcome the Bill; it is a planning Measure. Even the Government have now agreed that British agriculture and its production must be co-ordinated with imports on the lines of suggestions we have made from this side of the House year after year.
The Bill provides wide enabling powers. Here is the legal power for the setting up of badly needed power and machinery for co-ordination. I am sure that my hon. Friends, in the next Administration, will welcome this Measure, Clause 1 in particular, because there will be pressure from every Department of the next Administration for legislation and poor agriculture may find that it is not very high on the list. Thanks to the efforts of the present Government, there will be abundant provision here to set up adequate co-ordinating machinery and to utilise the wide powers which the Bill provides.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I will not follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris), except to say that I think that he was not able to be present on Report when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave a very definite assurance which would have allayed the hon. Gentleman's fears about the Common Market. All my hon. Friends know my views on this subject. I was extremely glad to hear the assurances my hon. Friend gave when discussing the question of minimum prices on Clause 1.
No system of minimum prices will be any good unless it takes account of the costs of our own producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who made an excellent speech. mentioned the terms in operation on the Continent. I agree entirely that we should be studying these matters now. We should not wait until such time as we have to consider horticultural questions under Clause 1.
Now, improvement grants. I know the difficulties in relation to new glass


My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that this provision is designed to provide for improvements in existing glass, to bring it up to date with thermostatic control, etc. Today those who grow new crops, particularly flowers, out of doors in areas such as the Scilly Isles have lost the advantages they used to enjoy from ordinary out-door growing because of the intensive flower cultivation which takes place under glass. It is, therefore, only fair for out-door growers to be given the advantage conferred by this part of the Bill on those with glasshouses. Those who have not already got glass should be helped in this way.
I was glad of the answer the Parliamentary Secretary gave in Committee about improvement grants to enhance the efficiency of marketing schemes. As I said then, there are respects in which we in the Scilly Isles may need assistance for harbours, quays, and so on, of which my hon. Friend agreed to take note. There are such matters as palletisation. This must be done over the whole country. It does not necessarily have to be local authorities. There can be other markets. I believe that an experimental crop auction is in use at the moment. There must be a co-ordinated policy, because it must depend not only on supply and demand in the area but also on adequate road and rail transport.
For years this problem has bedevilled us in relation to Covent Garden. This problem faced the Westminster City Council as long ago as 1946. It is no better now. The whole matter must be studied and planned before any decisions are made. I see no reason why there cannot be peripheral markets round London and why we should not do away with this wretched Covent Garden, which is a complete anachronism.
I agree with the tributes paid to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I was very glad to hear him say repeatedly in Committee that there would be discussions with the industry. The various policy decisions which will have to be taken under the Bill can be taken properly and efficiently only if there are adequate discussions with the industry.
There may be cases in which advantage cannot be taken of the grants under Clause 2 because it may be only one firm and the grower concerned may not be able to produce sufficient capital to

take advantage of the grant. I hope that when we consider this matter again there will be an alteration in the formula so that help is given to those who cannot afford the necessary money.
I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary speak of the proposed college with a professor. Many people have told me that not enough money is being spent on the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Although this service is doing excellent work, I have been told, particularly in Cornwall, that not enough facilities and money are available for horticultural research to be undertaken. I welcome the proposed establishment of a college of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend and I am sure that it will be of great value to the industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that we must help the horticultural industry to compete on fair terms with produce from abroad. This is quite an undertaking at the moment. when one considers, for example, the rail and air transportation of produce to this country from France and Italy. Those countries have a wonderful transportation organisation. From the moment their produce is embarked on trucks—in, say, the South of France or Italy—it is not touched again until it reaches its destination.
In my constituency, on the other hand, flower boxes, and so on, must undertake the steamer voyage from the Scilly Isles to Penzance, about 35 miles, must be handled several times and only palletisation and improved marketing arrangements and equipment will improve the situation. Comparable rail facilities must also be provided. Duplicity of handling must now arise with all produce brought from outlying areas, the West Country, and so on, into the markets.
It is only fair to draw attention to the general question of tariffs. There has been a great deal of feeling and in the West Country much fear about the possible removal of tariffs. The Government have said time and again—and I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will re-emphasise this—that there is no question of tariff changes taking place now. Even if the tariffs are not changed that will be equivalent, in the rising costs that are occurring in everything throughout the world, to a decrease in tariffs. I hope that we shall be given


an assurance on the tariff topic because it is a vitally important part of the protection which we can give to the industry.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome anything that will help our horticultural and agricultural producers. The Government have introduced a Bill which will be of great help to these people. I welcome the assistance and explanations we were given in Committee upstairs, although I hope that when the Minister replies he will reassure us on the points that I have raised.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Hilton: Like all hon. Members, I welcome the Bill because it will bring benefit to many people engaged in horticulture and agriculture. We must never forget the importance of this industry to Britain. In my constituency it is by far the most important industry and, therefore, it will be of benefit to many of my constituents.
There has been more unanimity in our discussions of the Bill than there has been on any other Measure in which I have taken part during the five years I have been in the House. The only shame has been that had hon. Members opposite voted in accordance with their consciences rather than at the dictate of their Whips, the Government Front Bench would have been defeated on at least a couple of occasions today.
This, of course, is part of politics, but we cannot deny that there has been a tremendous amount of agreement on both sides because all of us are so anxious to bring improvements and benefits to British agriculture and horticulture. As a result of this agreement I am sure that we have improved the Bill considerably. As other speakers have done, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the way he has worked on the Bill. He has told us on a number of occasions that although he could not accept our proposals he was sympathetic to them. I believe that he was genuine in saying that, but unfortunately he was a mouthpiece for the Government and he could not express his sympathy as he would liked to have done.
I welcome the grants which are designed to improve horticultural

marketing, which for many years has been a bugbear in this country. This provision, by itself, will bring tremendous benefits all round to the growers, the market traders and the consumers. We have waited for this for a long time and it is particularly welcome now. One feature of the Bill which has not been talked about as much as have some others is the grant for the grubbing-up of old orchards. Land is at present one of our most valuable assets. I believe that this grant will mean the reclamation and bringing back into production of many acres of valuable land which for far too long have been derelict. This is a move in the right direction.
Throughout our discussions one criticism of the Bill has been that in some ways it is too restrictive. I have spoken on a number of occasions on the need for better treatment for the small people, especially in horticulture. The small, efficient man in the industry has been for far too long at a disadvantage compared with the bigger man who has acreage and capital enough to claim the grants which are on offer. There are many small, efficient men who are without the necessary acreage to claim the benefits of the Bill and because of this they are now to be denied. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that consultations are taking place but he did not seem to be very optimistic about the outcome. I only hope that when they are concluded they will be of some benefit to the small man. There has been evident throughout the debate a feeling that more should be done to bring benefits to him. I wish the Bill well. I hope that it will not be long before it is passed and it comes into operation.

9.29 p.m.

Sir P. Agnew: The Bill has been brought before the House and it will obtain its Third Reading after a comparatively short time since we passed the 1960 Act. It was brought forward because it was generally felt that that Act had not fulfilled all the high hopes that were originally entertained for it. In bringing forward this Measure the Government have suffered from the loss of a body which would have assisted them as well as the industry in coming to some of the decisions which we find embodied in the Bill. I refer to the Horticultural Marketing Council, whose


untimely demise I greatly deplore. But that is a matter of history now. We have had to manage without it, though fortunately it left some records of its uncompleted work.
The Bill is a measure of assistance to the home industry and, as in 1960, it is permeated with the same method of giving that assistance, namely by grant. This is the chosen instrument. It is a phenomenon of the attitude of some growers to grants that they feel that there is something suspicious about them. They feel that it would be better if they could be found to be loan-worthy generally by the Government and the state of the industry could be such that they could gradually work off those loans. Again, they feel a sense of suspicion about the Bill that it is a package deal which is being given to soothe them for an oncoming loss of their protective tariff structure.
Of course, it would be idle to deny that we are entering—indeed, we are already in—an era of progressively freer trade in all classes of goods throughout the world. There is no getting away from that. I have endeavoured to persuade the growers with whom I have come into contact that this is a further genuine and honest attempt by the Government to set the industry on its feet by making individual holdings more viable and by encouraging under the various Clauses of the Bill the improvement of the marketing facilities which will be open to the industry.
The Bill contains one very important innovation, compulsory grading—the compulsory grading of selected items of fruit and vegetables at the wholesale level but not down to the retail level. In Committee, a great deal of attention was focused by hon. Members on both sides on the effect of not bringing these grading arrangements down to the retail level. However, it is frankly admitted that the grading was not intended to go into the retail trade but was intended, for this new phase we are entering, to allow quite a lot of fruit and vegetables which cannot, in the early years, achieve any grading none the less to find a reasonable outlet at least among people who live in the rural districts far from the more highly paid people who live in the cities. Such people will still be anxious to buy this fairly decent produce

which is yet not up to the standard one would expect to be graded in the markets.
I am sure that this is a right decision at this stage, particularly when it is coupled with the provision in Clause 11(3) under which the Minister, if he finds that the avenues which the Bill provides for fruit and vegetables to be retailed by the producer become too greatly used and the balance of the market for fruit and vegetables generally is upset, will not hesitate to use his powers to close that gate, if necessary, altogether. I feel that we ought to rest assured with that provision at this stage of the development of the horticulture industry.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will be readily and quickly used by growers so soon as it is passed into law. Although we had a difference of opinion earlier today on this matter, I hope, also, that both individual growers and rural producers' co-operatives will find that they can get their finance backed in such a way that they can make use of it. I wish the Bill godspeed upon its way.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: The Bill was necessary for three reasons—the failure of the deficiency payment system which the Government were operating, the resulting high taxation, and the failure of the Common Market negotiations. It was drafted fairly quickly in order to overcome these obstacles, and this is the reason why we have been unable to get from the Government at any stage a clear indication of how it will work. In the main, of course, this is what we are after. This is what our constituents are anxious to know. It is certainly what my constituents want to know. As regards horticulture, I recently had the opportunity to meet growers from all over the country, and I found that the fears and suspicions of those in West Cornwall were shared pretty well throughout Britain.
Much has been said about growers taking advantage of the very generous grants under the Bill which total, I believe, £24 million for horticulture. My suspicion is that this sum will never be spent because, if Cornwall is any guide, there is such a lack of confidence


in the future of the industry on account of the Government's hesitation to say anything definite about the future of tariffs, on which the Cornish industry has been built and will be sustained, and about markets in general.
I hope that our fears will not materialise, but I have very little confidence in a Conservative Government using all the wide powers which the Bill gives for the benefit of the industry and of the consumer. After all is said and done, if there is to be a great future for the industry, the interests of the producer and the consumer will have to be joined in a happy marriage.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Farr: I, too welcome the Bill in general, and I want, in particular, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the very able way in which he has steered us through today's proceedings. Earlier, I expressed reservations about Part I, but I also have a couple of points to raise on Parts II and III of the Bill.
Clause 9, in Part II, refers to specific grants for the improvement of wholesale markets, and I believe that my right hon. Friend, in an earlier debate, stated that he was there thinking in terms of markets with a throughput of £5 million a year, adding that 15 or 20 markets would come within that provision. What I particularly want to know is whether that £5 million is to be the actual or the potential throughput, whether it is to be a fixed figure or merely a figure provided for general guidance, and whether any consideration is to be given to regional matters.
To illustrate what I have in mind, the wholesale market in Leicester is completely ringed by development. It is at present virtually throttled. It has a present throughput approaching £4 million a year. It is unable to expand—partly because of a very zealous body of traffic wardens who interfere with the parking arrangements for vehicles around the market. The city corporation has made available a site of about seven acres away from the city centre, and the market development association has drawn up excellent plans, which I have seen, to develop this wholesale market on the new site, with adequate

vehicle parking space, at a cost of nearly £½ million.
I should not be at all inclined to accept as a fact that the market development association could not take advantage of Clause 9 simply because its annual throughput did not come up to the level suggested by the Minister. As has been said earlier in the debate, regional considerations must also apply. There is not another wholesale market between Leicester and London, there is not one to the east, and a vast area of country depends on that market to put its products through.
Turning to Clause 11, in Part III of the Bill, I would refer to what was said just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) about the possibility of its being necessary for direct sales from grower to retailer to be either completely stopped or severely controlled. I have respect for my hon. Friend's views, but I would put it to him that there are vast areas, away from the Vale of Evesham and fertile fruit-growing areas like that, where, at certain times of the year, the village shop is dependent on produce supplied direct from the neighbouring farmer. If, for instance, apples must go from the farmer next door to a wholesale market and then back to the village shop, it will cause a great deal of resentment in certain parts of the country.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Members for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) and Harborough (Mr. Farr). Without sounding pompous, I want to add my gratitude and congratulations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the work which he did during the long Committee stage. I hope that he will understand that I do that without any pomposity but sincerely knowing how hard he worked in Committee and today.
I hope that what I say will not be taken in any personal sense and that the criticisms which I make will be thought constructive by the Minister. Like other hon. Members, while I believe that it was time that something revolutionary was done about agriculture and horticulture, I think that the drafting of the Bill may have been a little hurried. The hon.


Member for Worcestershire, South hinted that the professional organisations on the horticultural side, for instance, might have been consulted before the Bill was drawn up. I know that to keep in order I must deal only with what is in the Bill, but I think that Alan Ramsay's summary in the Milk Marketing Board's magazine, The Milk Producer, sums up the Bill's effect. He says that the Minister
is shrewdly and boldly creating a legislative revolution in farming policy, the 1964 counterpart of the Acts of 1947 and 1957. His two-pronged Agriculture and Horticulture Bill—likely to be on the Statute Book this spring"—
and we are helping the Minister to get it on the Statute Book by this spring—
will give meat and cereal farmers an effective bridge to the modern world of trading. It will give us something we have been demanding for years: controlled imports and a floor price. For cereals the control will be by minimum prices; for meat by quantities. And for horticulture there will be an injection of public money: £50 million over ten years, to prepare growers for the next round of tariff reductions".
Therefore, the warnings come from both sides. We want to ensure that there is no immediate withdrawal of tariffs.
There in a nutshell and neatly expressed is the whole purpose of the Bill. What results will evolve from it, whatever Government comes into power? I believe that those in meat and cereal production will have a better chance to plan. Nevertheless, we must ensure that for the small farmer in milk production areas there is a balance between milk and meat production. That is an issue which we shall discuss when we come to the Price Review.
Hon. Members on both sides have tried to understand what machinery is involved. I do not believe the Minister was right when he said today to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) that it would be difficult to discover the world price of a particular commodity at any one time. That surely was not true, because from 2 o'clock until about 5 o'clock on the Baltic Exchange the world prices of cereals was more or less anchored and known at any moment.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Nonsense.

Mr. Davies: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary must not say "Nonsense." They can be known more or less. If it would have created a cumbersome

machine, might we not have been told about that rather than be given an answer which was altogether wrong?
Next, the question of market grants. We pleaded that as well as the earmarking of £5 million, organised planning should be thought out. We sought to include "regional" in one of our Amendments, and here we would be justified in the West Midlands and in the Welsh area. I am not qualified to speak in terms of Scotland, but when talking in terms of Scotland of a throughput—that is a horrible word—of £5 million for a horticultural market, I doubt whether there is a yardstick that would meet the £5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) can confirm or contradict what I say. In other words, a regional qualification is needed as well as the target of £5 million.
I should like to get rid of a few prejudices that the party opposite always spreads at General Election and other times. Let us get rid of this silly business about planning and its evils and punishment. We on this side are accused of wanting to nationalise everything from a barber's brush to a towel and one thing and another. Nevertheless, in the Bill we are faced with the reality of the life in which we live.
One has to plan to live sanely in the world. We have had to have constructive planning. It is all pragmatic. It is empirical that we improve as we go along. Nobody can make a complete blueprint of how the Bill will work. We must give and take. In the planning, we must have certain sanctions. When we on this side are accused of wanting to plan, I hope that we will hear no more nonsense about the powers of retribution that a Socialist or Labour Government might use, because in Clause 12 of the Bill we are increasing the powers of entry into premises—

Mr. Thorpe: If it is any consolation to the hon. Member, I do not think that it will happen. Lord Blakenham has just been giving people advice to vote Labour in the West Country.

Mr. Davies: That is splendid. We are told in Clause 12 of the Bill that
If a justice of the peace, on sworn information in writing, is satisfied


application can be made for admission to premises. Not only can it be made, but force can be used to enter the premises. Year in, year out, when we talk about planning, we are told that when we introduce constructive approaches like the attempt in the Bill to get men to co-ordinate and work together, when we include sanctions in a Bill, we are doctrinaire. I do not accuse the party opposite of that. If I were to be unfair to the party opposite and went through the Bill but spoke only about powers of entry to premises or the powers which can be obtained from a justice of the peace, it would be a complete distortion of the Bill.
Consequently, I hope that when we discuss the vital problem of agriculture and horticulture, which is important to Britain and is still our greatest industry, a balance will be kept concerning policies and the criticisms of each other's policy when we have to go to the country about what is still Britain's greatest and, I hope, finest industry.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: Unfortunately, I have not been able to be in the Chamber throughout the debate. I hope that it will not be thought discourteous if I intervene to make a few brief welcoming comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) have welcomed the Bill and have dwelt upon the number of Clauses which provide for horticulture. I should like to confine my remarks to Clause 1, which has more constituency relevancy for me. It is in itself almost a Bill, and certainly a major prospective piece of legislation. It contains, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said, very wide powers for a Minister of Agriculture.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) said. He and I served on the Committee. The hon. Member said that in those deliberations there had been revealed more unanimity on this Measure than on any other that he had known during his five years or so in this House.
I would not presume to dissent from that view, but I cannot help but recall that a few weeks ago, when there was a debate on Commonwealth development, some fairly strong language was used by his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) concerning by implication Clause 1 of the Bill, for he felt that this was a mighty protective instrument to place in the hands of Government.
If there is some degree of unanimity in the Chamber this evening I hope that those of us, on our respective sides of the Chamber, who represent agricultural interests will use our powers of persuasion upon any of our colleagues who may not be as immutably seized of the advantages of the Bill as we are ourselves.
The two points I should like to make both refer to Clause 1. I should like to take up the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris), when he spoke of this as being part of a deal. He referred to standard quantities. With the presence here of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the question of standard quantities of beef is a subject of no little interest. I very much hope that by the time the Bill has completed its passage through another place we shall know a little more about the standard quantities for beef.
I say this particularly since within the last few weeks there has been every indication that the United States market will no longer be as open to Australian beef exports as hitherto, and it is not unreasonable that there should be some concern lest the United Kingdom market may come under pressure from Australian beef exports. I hope that at a subsequent stage of the Bill we may have a little more information on this subject.
My other point is the minimum price structure contained in Clause 1. One saw throughout the Committee on the Bill that this has been thought of, quite naturally, I think, very much in terms of cereals. This was almost inevitably the case. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that these provisions could have very real significance in the future in terms of milk products. I say this because not very long ago, in the Common Market agricultural discussions. Dr. Mansholt said that every European dairy industry was


subsidised to some extent, and this undoubtedly would be very much confirmed by the observations of Members of this House.
That being so, I think one would be very foolish if one thought that the situation of a few years ago when French products were being brought into this country at dump prices could not be repeated, and it is very encouraging to know that the mechanisms in Clause 1 could be used to prevent that situation from recurring.
I close on a personal note. Since becoming, only a short while ago, a Member of this House—I say this with some trepidation in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South—I have served on the Committees on three Bills. The first was the Transport Bill. I served on that Committee almost immediately on becoming a Member of the House, and I regard that as a penance for my temerity in wishing to enter the House. The second was the Committee on the Bill about lavatory turnstiles, a Bill which will find a place in the catalogue of social reform. The third was this Bill, and I am truly grateful for having had the opportunity to serve on the Committee because it enabled me to see the House at work under probably its best circumstances. I believe that, in a quite and workmanlike way, we have been placing on record a Bill which will play its part along with the 1947 and 1957 Acts.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I was rather taken by the way the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) finished. He said that he had served on the Committees on three Bills since he has been here. He is very lucky; there are some of us who serve on three Committees at one time. The hon. Gentleman has measured his progress from transport through lavatories to this Bill, but he has something

greater coming to him yet. It may be that one day he will be selected to serve on the Scottish Grand Committee, and then he will really find out how a Bill should be treated.
I have seldom listened to a Third Reading debate in which so many Members have welcomed the Bill and then asked questions and expressed doubts. If the Committee stage had been conducted in the traditional Scottish manner, by now we should know something about the Bill and should be satisfied. Even the Minister—I pay tribute to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the way he handled the Bill and the patience and the exhaustiveness with which he replied to questions—was not quite sure how he would use the powers given him in the Bill.
As some hon. Members have said, this is a rather historic Bill. It marks a complete breakaway from the system of deficiency payments. It ends the open-ended aspects.

Mr. P. Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) that the deficiency payment system has broken down completely?

Mr. Ross: From experience of it over a number of years, it seems very much on the verge of a complete I am sure that there were some people in the Treasury who were very worried about what was going to happen next. But they seen now to have been saved.
I shall not go into the motives of the Bill. I am merely remarking on the fact that we are now proceeding more on the basis of a managed agricultural market. We have been trying to push Ministers into this for a long time. If we want stability in agriculture, we must inevitably proceed on this basis. The big question now hanging over agriculture is how it will be managed and what share of the market will go to the home producer and what share to the overseas producer.
I was amazed that the Secretary for Industry and Trade should have crept into this. Even within the working of Clause 1, there may be a tug-of-war between the interests of industry and the interests of agriculture. We should be foolish to deny that. Very large


question marks are still hanging over Clause 1. The Minister first said that it would concern cereals only. At one time he included beef as well, but then he excluded beef. There were to be levies only where there were no commodity agreements.
The power is as wide as it could be. It covers related products as well and we still await a statisfactory definition of "related product". It is defined in the Bill by reference to "related product". I hope that, before the Bill is through another place, someone will have given more definite attention to this considerable defect in draftsmanship.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will attempt to deal with the question of Parliamentary control over this system. We are glad that eventually he has ben dragged into the Bill—and I am not talking about his personal participation. Agriculture is Scotland's most important industry and horticulture also is very important. It was, therefore, disgraceful that with a change in agricultural policy of such tremendous potential, giving the Government the power to declare whether a whole section of agriculture is to prosper or not, or how much it is to prosper, the Secretary of State should not have been included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech on Second Reading and it is rumoured that he is to reply to this debate. Where was he in between?

Mr. P. Browne: There were no Scottish Members from the benches opposite on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman cares to interrupt standing up I will give him a reply.

Mr. Browne: Through no fault of the Secretary of State's any more than it was the fault of the hon. Gentleman, the Scottish Grand Committee was sitting throughout the time this Bill was in Standing Committee, as the hon. Members knows. The hon. Member himself appeared once or twice to vote, and that was all.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He must have been absent from the Standing Committee on those

splendid occasions when I delivered myself of imperishable oratory—at considerable length, according to some of his hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman's first mistake is that the Scottish Grand Committee was not sitting at all. It was the Scottish Standing Committee that was meeting. His second mistake is in the number of hon. Members who attended the Standing Committee on this Bill from this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and I were members. I had preoccupations also with other Bills, but the Secretary of State for Scotland has not appeared during the Committee stage of any Scottish Bill this Session. [Interruption.] I am addressing the Secretary of State, whose responsibilities are now written into the Bill. It is about that that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) interrupted me. If he has lost the battle then let him accept defeat. He may have to do so on another occasion soon, anyway.
I want to know how, administratively, this Bill will work. I understand that the regulations will be laid jointly by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland. There will be affirmative Resolutions under Clause 1 in relation to specifying commodities. The range available is unlimited.
An Amendment to Clause 8 defined horticultural produce. There are 10 items, but within many of them there are eight or nine other items. This will be a terrific responsibility, and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of our complaints in Scotland even about the present system is that, very often, there is a different harvesting time in Scotland from that in England and Wales, especially in horticulture, and that our needs have not always been met. Under Clause 1 the Secretary of State has specified responsibilities and I hope that he will indicate how he intends to live up to them.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been asked how this is to be administered and how the Minister will keep in touch with all the changes that will be made necessary. I was amazed by what the Parliamentary Secretary told us


about the possibility of prohibiting certain commodities when he said that he could not be expected to know what market prices were. I had a terrifying vision during one of his speeches in Committee of some little man sitting in his Ministry and keeping in constant touch, not just with various markets, but with ships and consignments and levy changes and import orders all over the place. With all due respect, we have not been given much more information about how this procedure is to operate. This little man will have to keep in touch with all the ports and with all the Customs and Revenue officers in those ports and all the consignments coming in in the middle of the night, in the early morning and so on. It is a forlorn appeal, but I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in his second speech on the Bill to enlighten us still further about the Government's intention; in this respect.
The other part of the Bill has been generally welcomed, but let us appreciate exactly what it means—about £50 million. Some suspiciously-minded politicians might construe this at this time as a bit of electoral bribery, but, being an innocent Scotsman, I would never suggest anything of the kind. It will be interesting to hear what the candidates in Lanarkshire and similar areas, will have to say. I have no doubt that we shall hear speeches about how timely this is and how it was in the mind of the Government during all these 12 years, but that they could just not get around to it and had to tie up the licensing laws of Scotland first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was quite right in what he said about national markets. If the Government have something in mind for markets of national importance, they should tell us where those markets are. The Secretary of State for Scotland has produced an elaborate plan—at least he calls it a plan—and in Glasgow last night the Prime Minister, assuming his latest mantle, the mantle of Cassius Claymore—he will probably get the same fate, too—told us that this new plan for Central Scotland was the most exciting and the most imaginative of the Government's activities during the next five years.
There are very important national wholesale markets in Scotland, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are very much in need of overhaul, if my connections with the wholesale fruit and horticulture trade are any guide. Can we be told whether they are included within the £20 million to be spent in the next 10 years, with the possibility of another £5 million over the following two years? It is about time that we had some specific information about the Bill.
I hope that before the Bill leaves another place some Minister will take the opportunity to clear up this position about the credit organisations, the monopoly which seems to be given to one, although there is no indication in the Bill that such a position can arise. We do not want administrative monopolies from a so-called modernising Government who proclaim free enterprise against restriction and control and then produce a Bill like this. I started out to count the number of times that the word "regulation" is used in Part II, but I lost count. I should be very surprised if the Parliamentary Secretary could answer a simple question like that if he is unable to satisfy us on other questions. However, I assure him that if he introduces these regulations fairly quickly, he will have plenty of opportunity to satisfy us about what the Bill really means.
Going back to the efficiency of horticulture, this question of grading is absolutely vital. The horticulture industry cannot depend on the admission of imports, or the extension of the provisions in Clause 1, to ensure the prosperity of the industry. That will depend on the ability of horticulturists to be efficient in the production, grading and marketing of their produce. That is fundamental. Given that, they would have the right to expect their interests to be consulted in relation to any unfair trading, and they will be entitled to their share of what will be a growing market.
I hope that when the Regulations are introduced we shall have a clearer idea of what is in the mind of the Government. I should like to know whether we have enough officers in the Department to carry out the work. Have we got any in Edinburgh? This will be


dealt with by the Department of Agriculture at the Scottish Office and I notice that the inspectors are to be centralised and not local inspectors, according to the way in which the officers are defined in the Bill. They will have powers of entry and all the rest of it, and we must face this position if we mean business about improving grading. We must hope that the Regulations will be administered sensibly.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the first opportunity to appease the farmers in Scotland who are feeling badly about matters at the present time. For the first time for many years the farmers in my constituency asked to see me, and I should not like to repeat their language. Mine is a farming constituency and probably one of the wealthiest areas of the dairy industry in Scotland. I understand that the farmers of Kinross and West Perth asked to see their Member and they were so dissatisfied that they demanded a meeting with the Prime Minister. We have not yet heard the result of that. I am concerned that the various problems tied up partly with the proper administration of Clause 1 shall be dealt with.
Speaking at Nairn, Mr. D. Scott Johnson, the Scottish N.F.U. economist, said:
Crucial issues which would affect the future of farming for decades were now facing the industry. 'The Government wants to reach agreements with overseas suppliers of mutton and beef and cereals similar to those announced for bacon'.
Every hon. Member knows what happened and the fears that were aroused by the bacon agreement and the limitation on the home market which may arise out of a maladministration of the provisions in Clause 1.
The limitation on standard quantities for milk and beef must be matters of concern for Scottish farmers and the Secretary of State with their knowledge of these markets.
Mr. Scott Johnson said the position would be worse when all major commodities were similarly restricted. 'The more production rises to keep up with rising costs the faster will prices be cut and the pledges in the Agricultural Act will lose all meaning. These are the dangers as the Scottish union sees them The Government must stop and work out solutions to these problems before steps are taken which will be hard, if not impossible, to retrace'.

May we know from the right hon. Gentleman how the Government propose to use Clause 1? Will it be a question of restriction, or expansion and fair shares of that expanding market for the farmers of this country?

10.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for welcoming me back since the Second Reading of the Bill to take part in its discussion. He seemed to suggest that I was less than diligent in my duties in not attending all Committee sittings, or indeed all the Committees, but, unlike the hon. Member, I do not like to run this considerable task as a one-man band.

Mr. Ross: Try to be less of a fiddler.

Mr. Noble: It is certainly true that in these considerations there is likely to be a tug-o'-war between agriculture and industry from time to time just as there is likely to be a tug-o'-war, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) said, sometimes between the agricultural producer and the consumer. Having listened to practically the whole of this debate, I think that its main feature has been the very high degree of unanimity which has been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides on the principles which are brought out by it.
It may be true that there is wide agreement. It may also be true that very little has yet been said about the specific type of machinery which has to be used. I think that is not unnatural. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that he expected he would get more information about this when the draft Orders are laid. I think that is right because negotiations have to be carried on with many different people, particularly on the question of cereals levies. It is right and proper that those negotiations should be continued and the orders should come out at the right time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) talked to some extent about the European experience in marketing. Many of us who have been to Europe during the last few years have seen how tremendously far in advance in some


respects they are over our position in this country in their marketing of horticultural produce. Certainly, we ought to study their system and learn what we can from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) mentioned very much the same points and called it palletisation and other market equipment. I agree with him that discussions with the industry should be engaged in on these points because we want to get the right answers and learn from any part of Britain or Europe how to get the right answers. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) spoke about tariffs. Perhaps I should restate the position once more.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has stated this, but I appreciate that when we are changing a system for an industry there is always a fear that perhaps the change will be for the worse. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested that there were people even more suspicious than he was, although it is difficult for me to appreciate that. The fact is that there will be no reductions in sensitive tariffs for some four years. On the horticultural products which are not sensitive—these are comparatively unimportant—there will be no changes without consultation with the industry. I think that that is as fair as one can say for an industry which inevitably will change.

Mr. Hayman: Could the right hon. Gentleman enumerate the sensitive items which would still be protected?

Mr. Noble: No, I cannot do that.
The hon. Member for Aberavon talked about the "failure" of the 1957 Act. That, of course, is speaking in very wild terms, because not very long ago, when the Common Market discussions were the cause of a slight difference of opinion across the Floor of the House, the farming community was demanding that we should stick to the 1957 Act and the guarantees and safety which it brought. It has brought a great deal of security to the farming world.
I, too, move in farming circles, and I do not deny that a good deal of worry is being expressed about the adequacy of

the income. This is bound up with the second point which the hon. Member made very clearly and rightly, namely, the demand from the country as a whole for cheap food. There is no doubt as to this, at least among my farming friends. Many of them say, "If only people who are not farmers would pay more for their food, as they do in Europe, we should be much happier about our position".
These two items are closely connected. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon that the balance must be watched carefully. The policy on cheap food, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, might go if we made robust use of Clause 1, is one of the ways in which the farming income problem could be solved.
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into his discussion on beef and milk, any more than I will follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) into standard quantities for beef, because I find it a little difficult to relate these questions to the purposes of the Bill. I would say to those who have asked whether the aim of the Bill is to prepare the ground for our entry into the Common Market that this has been flatly contradicted many times by spokesmen for the Government. I do so again.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) was extremely kind in the way in which he welcomed the Bill, particularly the grants for horticultural marketing and the grubbing up of old orchards and his congratulations to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has borne the heat and the burden not only of today, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is ill, but through the Committee.
I also welcome the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). He thought that his farmers had some suspicions about the package deal. All package deals need unwrapping and examining. My hon. Friend brought out what is the key, in my view, to the whole of the second part of the Bill, namely, that we are giving the horticultural industry a superb opportunity to develop and change into a really modern and worthy type of industry. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend thought that, once the Bill is passed, growers will quickly take up the opportunities and advantages which will flow from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about specific grants under Clause 9. He asked, in particular, whether the £5 million target for these markets was actual or potential. It is in fact either. If a market looks like having a potential throughput of £5 million, it will be developed. I think that this must be developed on a national rather than a regional basis. If we start trying to break our ideas of marketing up and confuse them with ideas of a lot of small markets to cover regions, we shall do a great disservice to the whole of this conception.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon Gentleman will not assume that I was thinking in terms of a regional plan with a host of small markets. On the contrary, I was merely suggesting that there may be other factors apart from throughput. Other relevant factors will be communications and the fact that in one specific region there may not be adequate facilities. Therefore, I suggested, as I did in Committee, that if we are to have a national plan we must also consider regional problems.

Mr. Noble: I do not deny that in the situation in which some of them are placed, the regional consideration may be involved. But I want to get the House away from thinking that they

should be small and regionally decided. They should be nationally decided, to serve the nation, although in certain circumstances regional problems will, no doubt, come into consideration.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of apples in the village shop. He need have no fear on this score. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary assures me that he is safe in respect of that worry.
Coming to the end of many debates on the Bill, and welcoming it as I do, and as many others have done, I should like to pay a tribute to the combined work of the Standing Committee, even though I did not have the pleasure of serving upon it. The record of the Committee's work shows how constructive it was in trying to improve the Bill. The Government accepted a number of Amendments, and in so doing they believe that they have improved the Bill. We have not been able to accept all the Amendments that the Opposition moved, but I do not believe that they, in their most optimistic mood, expected that we would. But I feel that, as a general result of our labours, we have been able to produce a Bill to which the House can confidently give a third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PLANT VARIETIES AND SEEDS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

10.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the House will observe, the Bill is a little less controversial than that which we have just been discussing. None the less, it is equally important and it has its complexities, too. The Bill has emerged from consideration in Committee with little amendment, save for the addition of a new Clause in Part III dealing with measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination affecting seed crops.
The main purpose of the Clause is to facilitate the production of high-quality seed of certain roots and vegetables which are in great demand by our own growers and also for export. These are produced mainly in East Anglia, and one great difficulty encountered by the seed growers there is to isolate one crop from another to prevent cross-pollination, which causes deterioration and loss. There are admirable voluntary zoning arrangements which my right hon. Friend does not propose to disturb, but these cannot work efficiently if other growers or gardeners allow a field of cabbage intended for market, or even a few plants in a garden or allotment, to run to seed within the zoned area.
Clause 33 provides a remedy for this by empowering my right hon. Friend, subject to proper safeguards, to have the plants removed if there is danger of injurious cross-pollination to an established seed crop. As hon. Members will, no doubt, recall, a similar principle is embodied in the Weeds Act, 1959, which controls the spread of injurious weeds to other land. This Clause was carefully considered and generally welcomed in Committee, and hon. Members will not perhaps wish

me to describe its provisions in detail. I would only say that the Clause is strongly supported by the National Farmers' Union, representing both seed growers and seed users, the seed trade and the National Allotments and Gardens Society. All these bodies realise the importance of high-quality seed, and I am sure will encourage their members to follow a good neighbour policy so that it should seldom be necessary for my right hon. Friend to employ the new powers conferred by this Clause.
While my right hon. Friend regrets that he has not found it possible to accept other suggestions for improving the Bill, he shares many of the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House during the course of debate. It is fully accepted, for example, that the Controller of the Plant Variety Rights Office will occupy a key post. Its importance for the successful operation of Part I of the Bill cannot he exaggerated.
The Government intend to make an appointment to this post as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law, and arrangements for the practical implementation of the Bill will be put in hand without delay. The Controller will be a Civil Servant with functions extending throughout the United Kingdom.
I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, as in the case of patents, rights in a variety should be valid throughout the United Kingdom, and this is what the Bill provides. I do not think that the Controller's office will develop into a large body. It will not duplicate but will act in co-operation with the various organisations which at present exist for carrying out trials of new varieties in the various parts of the United Kingdom, and there will also be close links with the agricultural Departments.
To explain the workings of the Bill a little further, Part I, on plant breeders' rights, will be brought into operation by stages as schemes are made by the Ministers for the various species of plants. We shall push on with the making of schemes as quickly as we can so that the benefits of plant breeders' rights are made available as widely as possible. When a scheme has been made, breeders in the species concerned may apply for rights and their new


varieties will be tested for distinctness, uniformity and stability. There will be no performance testing at this stage.
Under Part II Ministers will prepare an index of new varieties, and they will build this up section by section for the different species. A new variety must be distinct before it can be admitted to the index and this would involve the same kind of test as under Part I. In addition, under Clause 22 Ministers may select any section of the index and require new varieties of the species concerned to undergo a merit test before they may be put on the market. Thus any one variety may need to be tested for distinctness both for plant breeders' rights and the index, and also for merit under Clause 22.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree on the desirability of avoiding duplication and unnecessary expense, and the Government intend that all these tests should be conducted under comprehensive arrangements worked out between the agricultural Departments and the Plant Variety Rights Office.
There will, of course, be opportunities for breeders and others interested to make representations if they are not satisfied with decisions; for example, about whether a new variety should be granted rights or included in the index of varieties. There will also be opportunities for appeal to the independent tribunal. Publication of all these matters will be undertaken in the usual way in the farming and trade Press but, in addition, a special gazette will be published by the agricultural Departments. This will be a mine of information on all the matters dealt with under the Bill.
There are two other points that it might be desirable for me to mention. Firstly, Clause 16 confers wide Regulation-making powers on the Ministers, and I suggest to hon. Members that it was wise to cast the Bill in this form in order that, when Departments talk with the industry on the detailed provisions of the Regulations, it will be possible to adjust them to the industry's needs and take full account in future years of changes in requirements and techniques. Naturally, the industry attaches great importance to consulta-

tion and the Bill lays a duty on Ministers in this connection.
Secondly, what is now Clause 32 deals with the Government's powers to regulate the importation of seeds. The Clause does no more than transfer certain import control powers over seeds from the Board of Trade to the agricultural Ministers and its presence in the Bill does not indicate any change of policy. The opportunity has been taken, however, to define the Government's powers more precisely so that the industry may know where it stands. In exercising these powers, it is the Government's intention to continue on the same lines as in the past, and the Clause is wide enough for that purpose.
While suggestions have been made that the Government should take much wider powers over imports and exclude seeds which fail to reach some Government standard, I feel sure that the right course at this stage is to develop testing, information and advice so that farmers can make a well-informed choice. This is what the Bill does and I think that there will be general agreement that we should not consider embarking on a stricter control of imports—involving a corresponding control over home-produced seed—without further evidence that such a policy would be to our advantage. The Government will keep the matter under review and, in particular, careful note will be taken of the impact of any restriction on the trade in seeds which might be introduced in other countries.
This is a long and rather complex Measure which will play an important part in the future development of the agricultural and horticultural industries by encouraging the breeding of improved varieties and the marketing of the best seed. Our seed control measures under this Bill may be claimed to be both progressive and enlightened, without being unduly restrictive, and my right hon. Friend is much encouraged by the favourable reception which the Bill has had both in this House and in another place, in his belief that the policies it embodies will prove of lasting value to the agricultural and horticultural industries.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We have already discussed the Bill in


Committee and in the House and I do not propose to detain hon. and right hon. Members for long. I was amused when the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill had had a very favourable reception. His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) was rather critical of the Bill and he made some vigorous contributions to our earlier debates. Although I disagree with the hon. Member, I respect his point of view but it has since been muted and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will not find any opposition to the Bill tonight.
The Bill could have been considered in greater detail. This is why I complained about the holding of the Committee stage at short notice and the lack of time for hon. Members to consult various organisations which were affected. We on this side of the House in no way disagree with the principle of the Bill. It arises out of two major Reports by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds in November, 1957, and the same Committee's report on plant breeders' rights which was issued in July, 1960. We all know also about the international Convention.
I wish the Bill well. It introduces progressive legislation to protect plant breeders' rights. The Plant Variety Rights Office and the new administration generally will, I hope, bring benefits to the industry. In no way do we criticise these provisions. The control of imports has been mentioned and we all also accept the regulations governing the sale of seeds and seed potatoes as an improvement on existing legislation. We wish the Bill well and we shall examine its administration carefully. It is a long overdue Measure which I hope will be enacted quickly.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard (King's Lynn): I should like to raise a further point on the importation of herbage seeds and to say something about the Bill in general. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in explaining that there were powers in the Bill to prevent the importation of undesirable or useless sorts of herbage seeds, went a long way to satisfy me, but I am still mystified to some extent by the way in which G.A.T.T. is said to come into this business.
We proposed in Committee that, in addition to the provision in the Bill to prevent seed which had been produced in climates different from our own, or seed to be used for the adulteration of British seeds, coming into this country, there should also be general powers to prevent the importation of seeds known not to be useful in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument was that this would be contrary to G.A.T.T. He said that if we introduced that kind of restriction on seed brought in from abroad we should also have to introduce restrictions on seeds produced here.
I thought that that was exactly what the Bill did and that its whole purpose was to tighten up on the selling of seed of inferior quality or undesirable nature. Therefore, I should not have thought that there was any question of its being contrary to G.A.T.T. to include that kind of provision in the Bill. However, I have to accept my hon. Friend's explanation, but I still retain a doubt whether it is a good thing to allow inferior seed to be brought into this country and how G.A.T.T. could possibly frown upon our taking measures at the point of entry to prevent the arrival of these seeds. The National Farmers' Union, which has studied my hon. Friend's reply in Committee, still does not feel at all happy that he has gone quite far enough on this point.
Now, a word about the Bill generally. I raised a doubt about the whole principle of granting rights to plant breeders on two grounds. First, I thought that there was an objection to granting copyright or patent rights—call them what one will—to the producer or discoverer of a variety of living organism, plant or animal. I still retain that doubt. I do not think that these people have created anything. They have been fortunate. They have been ingenious. But the basic living thing is there for a start, and I think that there is a fundamental difference in this respect from a machine or any other kind of invention. I must still maintain my objection on that ground.
Secondly, I had a doubt because I was not at all sure that the Bill would bring about the improvements in plants which it was supposed to bring. At best, it will be very long-term in its operation.


We shall not see the results of the Bill, even if they are good—and I hope that they will be, because, having stated my basic doubt, I wish the Bill well—for a very long time. I beg to doubt that it will produce much result at all, and my doubt has been confirmed, as the Bill has proceeded, because it has become obvious that it will be very patchy in its operation.
The inclusion of rose breeding as a special subject for the grant of rights among all the ornamental plants and shrubs makes one wonder whether this Measure will produce the results throughout the plant kingdom which have been claimed for it. The rose propagators in my constituency, who are very important people in providing rose bushes for private gardens and parks, and the rest, are very skeptical about the Bill. It is true that the breeder of a new variety, having got it registered and gone through all the performance, will be obliged, ultimately, to release the rights to enable propagators to use it, on certain terms, but I think that it will be a very long process to get him to release those rights compulsorily.
The singling out of roses among all the ornamental plants for likely special treatment under the Bill gives rise to the feeling that this has been a Measure to deal with special cases rather than with the generality of plants. I think that this justifies my feeling that we may be a long time before we see positive results from the Bill in the plant kingdom generally.
In Committee, I raised the question of sugar beet seed breeding in relation to the Bill. I know that it is to apply particularly to cereals and potatoes, and it may well be that we shall get some good results from its application to those two crops, but I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend said that sugar beet seed breeding would come within the purview of the Bill or not, or whether there was likely to be a scheme which would incorporate this particular plant.
If it is to be included, I should imagine that there would be grave practical difficulties in bringing it within the scope. If it is not included, that is a condemnation of the Bill, because this is an important crop in our agricultural

economy and if the Bill does nothing to help the breeder of new sugar beet varieties, that is a substantial condemnation of the principle of the Bill.
Having raised these further points of criticism, I repeat what I said on Second Reading. Having registered my basic difficulty about giving full approval to the Bill, I wish it well in its operation and I sincerely hope that it will produce the results claimed for it, because the plant breeder makes an essential contribution to the improvement of our agriculture.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is an important Bill and it would be wrong if it went through without discussion. That is not to say that I intend to make a long speech, but I wish to refer to Clause 24, which deals with official testing stations. My opinion is that the Clause is drawn far too narrowly and that it could be widened considerably and so benefit the small body of seed growers without doing damage to countries from which we import seeds.
I wish to refer to inferior seeds, as did the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), and to staining, which is also covered in the Clause. As I see it, Clause 24 is designed to empower the Minister to control imports of what are described as "potentially deleterious seeds". These include one or the other of two types of imported seed, either bad seed which might cause deterioration of our good seed by cross-pollination or physical admixture, or seeds which are unsuitable for use because they were produced in countries with different hours of daylight or climate to our own.
Those inferior or useless seeds may be produced in countries with similar climates or hours of daylight to our own. These countries are the commonest source of supply of our imports. It seems that under the terms of the Clause, such seeds could be prohibited entry only if there were risk of their adulterating our better home-produced seeds. Seemingly, these inferior seeds would be admitted for use in those parts of the United Kingdom where this risk was negligible—for example, Scotland and Northern England.
Some of the Western European countries are adopting a policy of progressive improvement in the quality of seeds which they import. Our own policy on seed imports seems to compare very unfavourably. For the past 15 years, some varieties produced in countries with similar climates to our own have been prohibited entry under the Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. These varieties have been considered by the Government research stations as being of little value to British agriculture. Will the Parliamentary Secretary at least give an assurance that in future, under Clause 24, he will be able to exercise the same restrictions of entry against these undesirable varieties and kinds of seeds?
I wish also briefly to refer to staining, because I believe that Clause 24 would be further strengthened if the Minister took powers to introduce what are known in many countries overseas as staining systems. These already operate in Canada, the United States, Australia and other countries, where, by the addition of a dye to a small percentage of a parcel of seeds, the origin of the parcel can be recognised. For example, clover seed imported by Canada has to be stained to the extent of 1 per cent. with one colour if it originates from a desirable source or with some other colour if it is from a less desirable source.
This proposal is by no means intended to be generally discriminatory as between home-grown and imported seeds. It would be applied in special cases to safeguard the authenticity or the strain purity of English stocks from adulteration. A simple but significant example arises in the production of English red clover seed, particularly in the Eastern Counties and in my own constituency in Norfolk. Here, in climatically favourable seasons, this seed is harvested in substantial quantities and is exported to North America. The purity of the English stock is at present liable to become mixed with an inferior imported variety from Canada, thus threatening not only home supplies, but a valuable export trade. The straining of the foreign seed in this case would warn farmers to whom it might be supplied that it should not be used for multiplication.
Adoption of this proposal would, I believe, be advantageous not only to

farmers in their capacities either as seed producers or seed users, but also to seed merchants who are endeavouring to develop an export trade. I believe that the proposals which I have now suggested are very important to the people of this country who are producing seeds. I consider that all possible steps should be taken to prevent the entry into this country of any undesirable varieties and kinds of seeds. So I would ask the Minister for an assurance that he will incorporate into the Bill the proposals I have—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Member cannot on Third Reading discuss putting things into the Bill, but can discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Hilton: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
But if the hon. Gentleman cannot now do what I have suggested, will he bear these proposals in mind for the future, because I believe they will be beneficial to British agriculture?

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: By leave of the House, I would very briefly reply to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton).
I was asked whether sugar beet was within the scope of the Bill. The answer is, "Yes, it is", but we must recognise that there are difficulties; this is not one of the easiest crops to prepare a scheme for. My hon. Friend thought the Bill had not been viewed with kindness by these concerned with seed propagation. This is not so. The Bill is strongly supported by the organisations concerned with rose growing and breeding.

Mr. Bullard: Not in my constituency.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a national scale it is.
I turn quickly to one basic point of substance common to both hon. Members. That is the question of control over seeds coming to this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend was confused about this. G.A.T.T. does not permit import restrictions on grounds of general quality unless they are paralleled by controls


over home-grown seeds, and this Bill does not, in fact, so restrict sales of home-produced seeds. All it requires is trials to be held before sale to test performance. This means that both foreign seed and home-produced seed has to be tested.
My right hon. Friend makes an Order; the results of the tests are published; and the farmer or horticulturist who purchases the seed can see for himself and make up his own mind whether or not he will buy. It is up to him. So far as imported seeds are concerned, they cannot be stopped from coming in on these grounds. If we were to draw up a list of foreign seeds not up to some standard of our own devising, we should have to apply the same test here at home.

Mr. Bullard: I am accepting what my hon. Friend is saying, of course. I am sure that he is right about it, but may I just draw his attention to this parallel? We do not allow the importation of certain plants and seeds on account of disease. Surely the prevention of importation of deleterious seed would be more in comparison with that, than with comparisons between varieties. I should have thought there was a definite comparison with, for example, the prevention of diseased seed potatoes coming in.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What my hon. Friend was talking about originally was the prohibition of inferior quality seed, and I was arguing against him on that. I was pointing out that one would need a yardstick, and deciding where to put the yardstick would be very difficult. Moreover, it would have to apply at home as well. This would not be a workable proposition and would be something which would be wrong.
My hon. Friend was right in saying that some of these provisions will be rather long term. Even so, I am sure that the House will welcome the Bill. I hope I have satisfied the outstanding anxieties which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities in Scotland to develop, and assist in the development of, land and to empower such authorities to set up certain capital funds and renewal and repair funds, to borrow by means of bonds and to allow discount for early payment of rates, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.

Resolution agreed to.

EAST GERMAN CULTURAL GROUPS (TRAVEL FACILITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: The question of travel facilities for cultural groups from East Germany has been raised on a number of occasions at Question Time. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) spoke of the Brecht Theatre Company and its difficulties. I hope that he will have an opportunity of commenting on that problem in this debate if I am brief.
I am told that this theatre company would like to join in the festival in celebration of the Shakespeare anniversary at Stratford-on-Avon, but, obviously, there will be difficulty in accomplishing that. I recall that recently my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) raised the case of scientists in a college in Leeds who had twice been the guests of fellow scientists in East Germany and now, naturally, wished to reciprocate the hospitality; but they are prevented from doing this.
There have been difficulties, I believe, at various times with respect to artists who wish to visit the Edinburgh Festival. I also believe that if certain international football matches had resulted in a certain way, diplomatic difficulties might have been caused because the


East German team might not have been allowed here.
This series of difficulties arises from the fact that citizens of East Germany need first to be armed with what are called temporary travel documents issued by the Allied Travel Office in Berlin before they can seek British visas. The N.A.T.O. Powers have decided jointly to be quite restrictive in the issue of such travel documents.
Obviously, high politics are involved in all this. I have had correspondence with the Minister of State, who has explained in letters to me what the Government's position it. I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State's predecessor in the Foreign Office on the matter. I took a deputation to see him, and he, too, explained the situation and that the Government's policy arises from and is a protest against the building of the Berlin wall.
It is not my intention this evening to enter to any great extent into the power politics of the issue. I want merely to suggest that anomalies, and, indeed, absurdities, emerge from the Government's present policy on this matter. A case which has come within my personal experience is particularly suitable for illustrating the absurdities into which we can fall.
Last spring I visited East Germany with a number of my hon. Friends who are associated, as I am, with the Cooperative movement. We were invited to study the Co-operative movement in East Germany. We found that, by a happy coincidence, we were staying at the same hotel as a children's choir from the London Co-operative Society and had the pleasure of being invited to one of its concerts, given jointly with one of its host organisations, a children's broadcasting choir in East Berlin. It was a delightful performance and we were glad to see the children off-stage enjoying the company of their young hosts. We considered it to be a very good exercise in the fostering of international friendship between two groups of talented youngsters.
Unfortunately, soon after my return home I was told that a difficult situation had arisen. The education committee of the L.C.S., which had sponsored the visit to East Germany, wanted to return the compliment by inviting an

East German children's choir to this country for concerts but discovered that this perfectly innocent non-political exchange between children's groups came under the N.A.T.O. ban.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the N.A.T.O. policy in this matter, things are becoming absurdly inflexible when the regulations prevent the exchange of children's cultural groups. It has often been the complaint on both sides of the House that Communist régimes in Eastern Europe do not allow their citizens freedom of travel. That is a major criticism of Communism and I accept that the Berlin Wall is a formidable, unhappy physical reminder of the fact.
But I cannot understand that, while we deplore the lack of facilities for people from Communist countries to travel, we make matters worse by not allowing such facilities to those who can get permission to travel from their authorities. There might he some logic in our position if we applied this ban absolutely, but we do not. Businessmen can come here. Indeed, on my visit last autumn I met the manager of a factory, who had been able to come here during the course of business without any difficulty whatever. Everything was laid on for him to get all the necessary permits.
How can the Government or the other N.A.T.O. Powers justify this distinction between businessmen's travel and the travel of cultural artists? There is no rhyme or reason in it unless it be that the making of money is reckoned by the Government to have a higher moral purpose than the cultivation of the arts and sciences. I do not accept that standard, however. Nor do I think that many hon. Members do.
There is another anomaly. We welcome cultural visits from other Communist régimes. Last autumn, there was a highly praised visit by the Bolshoi Theatre Company which brought great joy to British audiences. We have just heard that the Americans and Russians have reached an agreement for cultural exchanges. They are not to be unlimited—the Russians object to jazz—but at least they represent a good step forward which has been widely welcomed. If we are to welcome this sort of cultural exchange, what is the


logical reasoning for resisting cultural exchanges with the East Germans? If it is said that it is the wall which makes the difference with the East Germans, that it is the wall which is to blame, do we believe that the building of the wall was a German decision and only a German decision? If on our side it is a N.A.T.O. question, are we not reasonably to suppose that on the other side it is broader than a question of Germany? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot refuse normal human relationship with the East Germans because we say that their Government is the mere tool and puppet of the Russians, which is what we say, and, at the same time, welcome cultural exchanges with this very Russia whom we accuse of pulling the puppet strings. The situation with cultural exchanges with East Germany is completely anomalous and illogical.
We are assured that the situation is constantly under review, but I am by no means confident that the Government are actively pursuing the question within the countries of N.A.T.O. I would welcome any evidence that they were. Either we are to carry these restrictions to their logical conclusion—and I hope that that is not the path which we are to tread—or—and this is what we ought to do—we should do everything possible to relax the regulations and liberalise, so far as lies within our power, the interchange of human talents.
That is the path which the Government ought to be seeking to follow. At the moment, they seem to be playing a game of tit for tat, and in these matters of human relationships that is unworthy of any civilised country.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I should like briefly to raise the issue of the invitations which have been issued to the Brecht Theatre Company and the way in which they have been treated. It is generally agreed by all competent critics that during the last 35 years Bertolt Brecht has been one of the most brilliant playwrights who has written in any European language. His plays are being performed in practically all countries, no matter what their political

régime or general philosophy and approach to life.
Some time ago, the company was invited by a London impresario, because of the demand among the theatre-going public, to have a season of several weeks in London. He was refused this famous travel document of which we have heard and could not come. More recently, at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival, invitations were sent by the organiser of the festival to a number of theatre directors in various countries to take part in a theatre conference.
The Brecht Theatre Company was invited to send two directors, but they were refused this travel document, on the authority of the Foreign Office, so it had to be announced at the Edinburgh Festival that these directors would not be able to take part in the conference.
We are now in Shakespeare Festival Year and I understand that an invitation has already gone to the company, or is to be sent, to take part in the festival to honour William Shakespeare. Many companies from other countries will come here for this purpose and it will be a sorry day, in the year when the world is to honour Shakespeare and when many ambassadors, including the Soviet Ambassador, will be leading the procession at Stratford on the day when the commemorative part of the festival is taking place, if it were to be announced that the Brecht Company had been prevented from coming to England. The general principles behind this need a great deal of explanation and justification.
All of us raising this matter are as much opposed to the policy of the wall and the dictatorship in East Germany as is any member of the Government. We are on record in demanding again and again a lessening of the dictatorial methods of the East German regime. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), I have recently appealed to the authorities there for the release of two political prisoners. There is no difference in approach on this matter. What is at issue is something much more limited but very important. The N.A.T.O. countries, at the insistence of the West German Federal Government, have decided to impose this ban. This


has led us into absurdities. I urge the Government to take the lead, first of all in this country and then in the N.A.T.O. countries. in having some relaxation introduced into this absurd business.
If it is possible to argue that businessmen can come to this country, this relaxation can be introduced. On the other hand, if the East Germans instructed some of their political propagandists on their initiative to come to this country and to try to cause political trouble here, and the Foreign Secretary decided not to let them in, he would have my support.
Here, however, we are dealing with people who are making a contribution to the international cultural life. We always criticise—I certainly do when I meet East Germans—the limitations on the artistic life of East Germany. I ask them, "Why do you publish only Dickens and Shakespeare and few other English writers? Why not publish 'Animal Farm' and all the other books which you regard as critical of your philosophy?"
But we have no leg to stand on if, while making those critical demands, our own Government indulge in this sort of prohibition against bona fide artists who are invited to come to this country. I conclude by urging the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—both should not need much explanation—to see the distinction between political instructors and propagandists, on the one hand, and actors and playwrights, on the other, and to start by relaxing these prohibitions this year in allowing this company to come into the country to take part in Shakespeare Festival Year.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I rise briefly to support the general case which has been argued from these benches in the last few minutes. As Member for a Leeds constituency, I want to concentrate the mind of the Under-Secretary of State on the issue which was brought to his notice on 10th February by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon).
May I remind him of the circumstances of the case? Two visits had been made from the Leeds College of Technology by students to the Engineering Hochschule, in Karl Marx Stadt, in

Eastern Germany. When that happened there was no ripple, as far as I understand it, of the international scene. Nobody at Fontainbleu imagined that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was in danger. Nobody in Western Germany imagined that anybody in Leeds, in particular, or in this country in general condoned the East German régime, and the East Germans were under no illusion about it, either. If the reverse journey took place, I am sure that the same thing would occur.
This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister condone the use of East German ships to carry British buses to Cuba because of American legislation. Nobody imagines that because of this he condones the East German régime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) mentioned on that occasion, on 10th February, the two parts of Germany got together for the Winter Olympic Games recently in Austria, but nobody imagined that the West German Government condoned the East German Government on that occasion and N.A.T.O. did not object. At Christmas, when the wall was breached for excellent reasons, nobody imagined that the Bonn Government condoned the East German régime.
I come to the point. Let these Germans come to Leeds. They will find out in cool, succinct northern terms what is thought in this country of the East German régime They will not find it out otherwise. I ask the Minister to thaw the N.A.T.O. attitude of 1948. I appeal to him to let the East Germans come to Leeds and to find out what goes on in a democratic country.

11.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) for having given me the opportunity to try to put this matter in its proper context. Of course, cultural groups in this country find it hard to understand why it is more difficult for an East German choir or an East German theatre company to visit this country than for a comparable Russian, Polish or Czechoslovakian group to do so, and I think I can say that Her Majesty's Government fully understand that point of view.
It is, of course, the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage artistic, scientific and sporting exchanges with the countries of the Communist world, as indeed with all others. We know that the Communists regard all such activities as primarily political, but we, on the other hand, regard them as part of the process of the exchange of ideas without which the development of truly peaceful co-existence could not take place.
The risks of political exploitation by the Communists are outweighed, in our view, by the higher importance of human contact as a means of gradually breaking down the barriers of misunderstanding between East and West. We must obviously have a good reason for not applying this policy in the same way to East Germany. That good reason is the Berlin Wall, as a number of hon. Members who have intervened have indicated.
Before I talk about the wall, I should say something about the special situation as regards travel which has always prevailed between East Germany and the N.A.T.O. countries. The hon. Member inferred that the special temporary travel permits were a sort of unnecessary invention of N.A.T.O. Of course, travel facilities and other travel regulations between East Germany and N.A.T.O. countries are complicated by the fact that East Germany is not recognised as a separate State or country.
Because we do not recognise the East Germany authorities, we cannot, of course, recognise East German passports. Therefore, in order that the inhabitants of East Germany may be able to come to Western countries they are given what is called a temporary travel document. This is issued by the Allied Travel Office in Berlin. Originally, this was a quadripartite organisation, but now that the Russians have split off, the Allied Travel Office is operated exclusively by the Americans, the French and ourselves.
These temporary travel documents are issued jointly under the authority of the three Western governing Powers in Berlin and have to be supplemented in each case by a visa for the particular country concerned. Until August, 1961, it was the practice of the Western Governments to issue these travel documents to East German visitors on a generous scale, a wide

scale. We could not, of course, give travel facilities to political leaders of a régime which we did not recognise, but normally there was no other restriction.
About 20,000 such temporary travel documents were being issued every year. Then, in 1961, the Communists put up the wall. This illegal and arbitrary challenge to the status and authority of the Western Powers in Berlin could not be allowed to pass without some response. And this was not all. The East Germans enforced their new policy with great and inhuman cruelty. They built and manned the wall, and did not hesitate to shoot to kill at East Germans who tried to enter West Berlin. Not only men but women and youths have been shot down.
Moreover, the East German authorities, while still admitting some visitors from Western Germany totally barred the population of West Berlin from the eastern sector of the city. In the face of this provocation the Western Powers had to react, and they did so by suspending the issue of temporary travel documents to East Germans. I think that in all the circumstances the House must recognise that this was a reasonable measure.
If the East Germans were to allow no people out of their country except the gaolers and the custodians of the prison that they were operating, it was not in our interests to make travel easy for the gaolers alone.

Mr. Mendelson: We have quoted examples of the children's choir and the theatre company. The hon. Gentleman is talking about gaolers.

Mr. Mathew: Nobody is allowed to leave East Germany unless it suits the purposes of the East German authorities, and those purposes are in every case political. These are the facts that hon. Gentleman have got to recognise. If we had followed the policy which has been suggested, we would be playing the game of the gaolers, who are playing a political game and nothing else.
Relaxations were made last year in respect of those coming over to take part in international games or international conferences. These 1963 relaxations are an earnest of N.A.T.O.'s good faith. N.A.T.O. has continued and is continuing now to keep this policy


under review. There is absolutely nothing inflexible about that policy. I do not wish to suggest that the present situation is by any means perfect. Of course, it is not. We shall continue our search for ways and means of making it possible for East German groups who are invited to Western countries to make visits, where such visits are not calculated or planned by the East German régime to bring political advantage to them.
We welcome, for instance, the Christmas passes agreement. We welcome it for its own sake and in the sincere hope that it represents some change of attitude on the East German side. The success of the arrangement above all, proves the strength and the continuing power of human bonds between East and West Berlin, bonds to which the East German régime itself has deliberately and callously denied natural expression for a very long time.
Between 17th December and 5th January nearly 1¼ million visits were paid to East Berlin by about half a million West Berliners. But movement from East Berlin to West Berlin remained forbidden. Those who tried to escape were shot, even during the passes agreement. The hard truth is that the East Germans are trying to make political capital out of human suffering for which their own policy is wholly responsible. N.A.T.O. cannot be expected to support the motives of the East German regime in this.
We have heard a number of criticisms from hon. Members opposite of N.A.T.O. policy towards East Germany. But the House may be sure that that policy is neither unjust nor pointless. Its purpose is not to make an empty and meaningless protest or gesture; nor is it a display of pique. Its purpose is, in fact, a considered attempt to persuade the East German authorities that we will not treat those whom they allow to travel in a normal manner, until they grant normal civilised treatment to their own citizens. We shall continue that attempt until it is successful, even though we shall try to do so in ways which will cause the least possible hardship to people and organisations in Britain. Our aim is to secure that free

dom of movement which the people of Berlin and. East Germany have a right to expect, and of which they have been so unjustly deprived. I do not think that aim is unworthy.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: There may be wide agreement with what the hon. Gentleman says about not wishing to recognise East Germany and to register our disgust at the wall. But, clearly, what he has said is totally inconsistent. In the first place, every Communist country controls which citizens shall come out of that Communist country. If we are to object to Communist visitors on that ground, we must object to visitors from the Soviet Union and from every other such country.
On what basis does N.A.T.O. discriminate? We are not asking for ourselves to stand outside the N.A.T.O. arrangements, but why is it that, for example, athletes with the maximum publicity representing Eastern Germany are allowed out, businessmen of the greatest influence are allowed out, but school children are not allowed out? There cannot be any kind of consistency in this policy. We are not so much objecting to the principles but to the extraordinary topsy-turvy way in which they are carried out.

Mr. Mathew: A number of applications are made for travel documents. About a half of them are granted at present, according to my information, and each case is weighed up on its own. The hon. Member talks of East German teams, but this is an all-German Olympic team. The Communists have not been unknown to use small children in choirs and others for political purposes. As I say, each case is weighed up on the facts. It is all very well to talk about one case about which an hon. Member may know in his constituency, but—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.